LIBRARY  OF  THE 
UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 
AT  URBANA-CHAMPAICN 


IcH.S 


EERATA. 
Page     97.     First  line:     Change  "I"  to  "he." 

Page  109.     Eleventh  line  should  read:     "That  mem- 
orandum you  called  the  Lorimer  case." 

Page  109.     Line  27:     Change  "  (608)  "  to  "  (867)." 


Page  114.  Telegram  from  Edward  H.  Thomas  should 
read-  "Reminders  sent  January  twelfth 
to  Charles  E.  Ward  there  via  American 
Express.  Tra^AED  H>  THOMAS. " 

Page  138.     Ninth  line:     Change  "29th"  to  "19th." 

Page  144.  Paragraph  three:  Change  January  "21" 
to  January  "20." 


Page  162. 


EDWAED  HINES  TO  THE  UNION 
LEAGUE  CLUB 


A  STATEMENT  OF  FACTS  RELATIVE  TO 

CHARGES  CONSIDERED  BY  ITS 

BOARD  OF  DIRECTORS 


"It  is  not  proved  that  Edward  Hines  received  $100,000  or 
any  other  sum,  or  that  he  contributed  any  sum  whatever  to  aid 
in  or  obtain  the  election  of  William  Lorimer  to  the  United 
States  Senate.  The  evidence  is  that  he  did  not  raise,  contribute 
to  or  expend  said  sum  or  any  sum  of  money  whatsoever  to  aid 
or  assist  improperly  in  the  election  of  Senator  Lorimer." 

Resolution  passed  without  a  dissenting  vote  by  the  Dillingham 
Committee  on  March  28,  1912. 


"I  have  never  known  or  heard  of  anything  in  Mr.  Hines' 
habits  or  in  his  personal  life  that  could  be  subject  to  the  least 
criticism." 

Testimony  of  Clarence  8.  Funk  before  the  Dillingham  Committee. 


After  the  most  searching  inquiry  the  Committee  is  unable  to 
find  any  evidence  that  any  sum  of  money  was  raised  or  con- 
tributed by  Mr.  Hines,  or  through  his  suggestion,  or  with  his 
knowledge,  to  be  used  corruptly  in  securing  the  election  of  Mr. 
Lorimer  as  a  Senator  of  the  United  States  from  the  State  of 
Illinois,  or  that  Mr.  Hines  participated  in  any  corrupt  practices 
of  any  nature  in  connection  with  such  election,  nor  can  the  com- 
mittee find  that  any  such  fund  was  raised  by  any  person  or 
persons  to  be  so  used.  The  Committee  goes  further  and  reports 
that  it  finds  no  evidence  that  any  such  fund  was  ever  contem- 
plated by  Mr.  Hines,  or  suggested  to  him  by  any  of  the  gentle- 
men with  whom  he  conferred  before  the  election  of  Mr.  Lori- 
mer regarding  the  election  of  a  Senator  of  the  United  States 
from  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  in  fact  there  is  no  proof  that  Mr. 
Hines  raised  or  furnished  or  spent  improperly  any  money  to  aid 
in  the  election  of  Mr.  Lorimer. 

Extract  from  Keport  of  the  Dillingham  Committee  made  on  May 
20,  1912. 


w  r~,  i 

32-4,773 
H  ^  $  £" 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE  UNION  LEAGUE  CLUB. 

CHICAGO,  JUNE  17,  1912. 

THOS.  H.  SMITH, 

4407  Lake  Ave.,  Chicago,  111. 

Dear  Sir: 

In  my  letter  to  you  of  March  23,  1912,  regarding  the  action 
of  certain  directors  of  the  Club  in  expelling  me,  I  said  I  would 
send  you  a  "Statement  of  Facts"  which  I  believed  would  con- 
vince you  and  any  unprejudiced  member  that  such  action  was 
grossly  unjust  to  me,  unwarranted  by  the  evidence  and  that 
the  hearing  given  me  was  a  biased  one. 

The  delay  in  presenting  these  facts  has  been  caused  by  two 
reasons.  First  ;  Nearly  a  month  passed  after  the  hearing  before 
the  officials  of  the  Club  would  consent  to  supply  me  with  the 
record  of  the  proceedings  on  which  my  expulsion  is  alleged  to 
have  been  made.  Second;  I  have  insisted  that  my  attorneys 
should  make  an  exhaustive  study  of  that  record  and  compare  it 
with  the  official  record  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Dillingham 
Senatorial  Committee,  and  that  every  precaution  be  taken  so 
that  a  review  of  the  proceedings  might  be  presented  against 
which  no  criticism  could  be  directed. 

The  motive  of  your  officers  in  hesitating  to  grant  my  demand 
for  a  copy  of  this  record  will  be  disclosed  to  you  when  you 
have  read  the  pages  that  follow.  Not  until  Mr.  Marquis 
Eaton,  my  attorney  in  that  hearing,  and  an  honored  member 
of  your  Club,  had  made  repeated  and  insistent  demands  for 
this  record,  was  it  reluctantly  yielded  to  him.  In  order  that 
you  labor  under  no  misapprehension  concerning  this  strange 
attitude  of  certain  of  your  officials,  I  refer  you  to  the  following- 
correspondence,  and  ask  you  to  note  that  it  is  indicative  of  a 
desire  to  deny  me  an  opportunity  to  present  to  you  the  record  of 
those  proceedings: 

3 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.  CLUB 

LAW  OFFICES  DEFREES,  BUCKINGHAM,  RITTER,  CAMPBELL  & 

EATON. 

CHICAGO,  FEB.  28,  1912. 
Mr.  Walter  D.  Herrick, 

Secretary  Union  League  Club,  Chicago. 
Dear  Sir :  Mr.  Edward  Hines  has  asked  us  to  obtain  for 
him  immediately  a  record  of  the  proceedings  before  the 
Board  of  Managers  of  the  Union  League  Club,  in  the 
matter  of  the  charges  filed  against  him  under  date  of 
June  2,  1911. 

Will  you  please  authorize  the  official  stenographer  to 
prepare,  at  the  expense  of  Mr.  Hines,  and  to  deliver  to 
Mr.  Hines  a  copy  of  the  record  of  such  proceedings, 

Respectfully  yours, 

DEFREES,  BUCKINGHAM,  RITTER,  CAMPBELL  &  EATON. 

By  Joseph  H.  Defrees. 

It  was  assumed  that  this  request  would  be  granted  without 
hesitation  or  the  imposing  of  conditions.  When  the  hearings 
were  over,  my  attorney  was  promised  a  transcript  of  the  pro- 
ceedings and  was  given  to  understand  that  he  might  have  three 
copies  thereof  if  he  would  pay  for  them.  We  agreed  to  pay 
for  them,  but  when  he  tried  to  get  the  transcript  for  me  the 
matter  was  delayed  time  and  again. 

After  repeated  attempts  to  obtain  a  copy  of  the  record  of 
the  proceedings,  Mr.  Eaton  was  told  he  might  have  a  copy 
on  this  remarkable  condition:  That  I  should  not  show  it  to 
anybody,  or  leave  it  around  where  it  might  be  seen,  and  that  I 
should  make  no  use  of  it  for  any  purpose!  Can  you  imagine 
what  I  would  want  with  this  record,  especially  three  copies  of 
it,  and  be  willing  to  pay  for  them,  unless  I  wished  to  make  some 
use  of  them  ?  Finally  an  excuse  for  not  letting  me  have  these 
copies  was  made  by  one  member  of  the  Board,  who  stated  that 
he  had  learned  from  some  source  that  I  intended  to  prepare 
a  statement  therefrom  to  send  to  the  members  of  the  Club ! 
What  do  you  think  of  that? 

When  you  have  read  these  pages  you  will  understand  why 
this  course  was  attempted.  Mr.  Eaton  brought  matters  to  a 
crisis  on  March  13,  through  the  following  letter: 

4 


EDWARD   MINES  TO  THE   U.    L.   CLUB 

LAW  OFFICES  DEFREES,  BUCKINGHAM,  RITTER,  CAMPBELL 
&  EATON. 

CHICAGO,  MARCH  13,  1912. 
Mr.  Wm.  P.  Sidley,  President, 

1007  Tacoma  Building-,  Chicago. 

Dear  Sir:  Your  telephone  message  of  yesterday,  in 
which  you  advised  Mr.  Eaton  that  the  Board  of  Directors 
of  the  Union  League  Club  regarded  the  copy  of  the  record 
of  the  proceedings  against  Edward  Hines"  as  delivered 
under  injunctions  of  the  utmost  secrecy  with  respect  to 
its  use,"  has  been  the  subject  of  consideration  in  this 
office. 

We  are  of  the  opinion  that  it  is  desirable  to  avoid 
possible  misunderstanding  by  a  formal  statement  of  our 
position  in  the  matter. 

(1)  We  have  no  information  with  respect  to  the  use 
Mr.  Hines  proposes  to  make  of  the  record  in  question. 
The  fact  that  he  directed  us  to  order  two  extra  carbons 
for  his  attorneys,  Judge  Farrer,  Judge  Hynes,  Judge  Page, 
and  Messers.  Herrick,  Allen  &  Martin,  is  one,  the  sig- 
nificance of  which,  if  it  has  any,  is  as  readily  interpreted 
by  you  as  by  us. 

(2)  Our  Mr.  Defrees,  in  his  letter  of  Feb.  28th,  re- 
questing on  Mr.  Hines'  behalf  a  copy  of  these  proceedings, 
did  not  leave  ground  for  any  impression  that  we  were 
undertaking  to  control  the  use  of   such  record   in  the 
hands  of  Mr.  Hines  and  his  General  Counsel. 

(3)  We  had  no  doubt  then  and  we  have  no  doubt 
now  that  Mr.  Hines  is  entitled  as  a  matter  of  right  to 
the  copy  of  the  record  requested  on  his  behalf. 

(4)  Because  of  our  relation  to  the  Union  League  Club, 
we  felt  that  the  proprieties  would  be  better  served  if  we 
retired  as  counsel  in  the  matter  at  the  conclusion  of  the 
proceedings  before  the  Board.    Our  views  in  this  respect 
were  strengthened  by  the  vote  of  the  Board  to  give  Mr. 
Hines  (as  we  supposed,  unconditionally,)  a  copy  of  the 
proceedings.     We  felt  that  this  copy  would  enable  Mr. 
Hines'  General  Counsel  to  represent  him  understandingly 
in  future  litigation,  if  any,  and  that  the  retirement  of  the 
Counsel  who  directed  the  proceedings  in  his  behalf  would 
therefore  work  no  injustice  to  Mr.  Hines. 

(5)  Having  reported  to  the  General  Counsel  the  exact 
facts  with  respect  to  our  unconditional  request  and  the 
Board's  unconditional  compliance,  we  are  humiliated  and 

5 


EDWARD   MINES  TO   THE   U.   L   CLUB 

embarrassed  by  an  intimation  that  the  Board  expects  us  to 
be  responsible  in  any  way  for  the  use  of  the  record  by 
others  over  whose  actions  we  obviously  have  no  control. 

(6)  For  the   reasons  stated,   we  must  stand  in  this 
matter  solely  on  our  letter  of  Feb.  28th.    Mr.  Hines  and 
his  General  Counsel  have  regarded  that  letter  as  a  legal 
request  for  a  copy  of  the  proceedings  and  they  will  natu- 
rally insist  either  on  the  unconditional  compliance  which 
we  assumed  was  authorized,  or  upon  a  refusal  by  the 
Board  of  what  Counsel  all  regard  as  a  wholly  just  request. 

(7)  We  are  writing  this  letter  without  consultation 
with  Mr.  Hines  or  his  Counsel.    We  think  Mr.  Hines  is 
absolutely  entitled  to  have  a  copy  of  these  proceedings 
delivered  to  him  unconditionally,  and  we  must,  of  course, 
decline  the  covenant  against  any  acts  other  than  our  own. 

Very  Respectfully, 

DEFREES,  BUCKINGHAM,  RITTER,  CAMPBELL  &  EATON. 

By  Marquis  Eaton. 

This  letter  had  on  March  22nd,  the  desired  effect,  and 
rendered  unnecessary  the  contemplated  bringing  of  legal  pro- 
ceedings against  the  Board  to  secure  the  record  to  which  I 
was  entitled,  but  which  had  been  withheld  for  weeks.  If  your 
officials  have  any  just  reason  for  attempting  to  impose  secrecy 
on  me,  ask  them  to  name  it.  I  eagerly  embrace  this  oppor- 
tunity to  present  to  you  a  fair  review  of  the  facts  developed 
before  your  Board  and  found  in  the  record  of  my  trial  before 
it.  That  record  affirms,  not  my  guilt,  but  my  absolute 
innocence. 

SOME  PRELIMINARY  HISTORY 

The  events  leading  up  to  the  action  against  me  are  here 
briefly  summarized.  The  dates  are  important. 

May  26,  1909,  William  Lorimer  was  elected  Senator.  About 
Sept.  20,  1910,  a  sub-committee  of  the  United  States  Senate 
came  to  Chicago  and  remained  till  about  Oct.  8,  taking  evidence 
in  regard  to  Mr.  Lorimer's  right  to  his  seat.  During  all  that 
time  it  held  its  sessions  just  across  the  street  from  the  offices 
of  C.  S.  Funk  and  the  International  Harvester  Company.  The 
newspapers  had  full  accounts  of  its  hearings,  and  Funk  and 
those  connected  with  him  knew  the  purpose  of  the  same,  but 

6 


EDWARD   HIKES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

none  of  them  went  before  or  communicated  with  that  Com- 
mittee, although  Funk  undoubtedly  passed  where  it  was  sitting 
every  day. 

The  sub-committee  returned  to  Washington,  and  about  Dec. 
21  made  its  report.  The  United  States  Senate  declared  Mr. 
Lorimer  entitled  to  his  seat.  Up  to  that  time  no  one,  to  my 
knowledge,  had  even  intimated  that  I  improperly  aided  in  the 
election  of  Mr.  Lorimer. 

Jan.  17,  1911,  what  is  known  as  the  Helm  Committee,  was 
appointed  to  investigate  charges  of  improper  conduct  of 
members  of  the  Illinois  Legislature. 

On  March  28,  1911,  I  was  called  before  that  Committee  and 
extensively  questioned  in  regard  to  having  solicited,  contributed 
to,  raised  or  having  any  knowledge  of  a  fund  to  aid  in  the 
election  of  Mr.  Lorimer.  There  under  oath  I  denied  having 
done  any  of  these  things  or  having  any  such  knowledge  of 
them.  At  that  time  I  was  utterly  ignorant  that  Funk  claimed 
to  have  had  any  conversation  with  me  in  which  I  said  I  finan- 
cially aided  in  that  election,  or  that  I  had  asked  him  for  a 
contribution.  After  testifying  I  was  permitted  to  return  home 
without  any  suggestion  of  the  existence  of  such  a  claim  or 
that  such  claim  was  then  known  to  the  Committee  or  to  its 
attorney.  But  in  the  light  of  what  followed,  it  is  clear  that 
the  Helm  Committee  and  its  attorney  had  such  knowledge  in 
advance  of  the  testimony  of  Funk;  also  that  their  calling  me 
first  and  not  asking  me  specifically  about  the  Funk  claim  was 
part  of  a  prearranged  plan.  The  natural  and  fair  way  would 
have  been  to  have  called  Funk  first,  or  at  least  to  have  specifi- 
cally questioned  me  concerning  that  claim. 

/  never  had  asked  Funk  for  any  contribution,  did  not  know 
he  made  any  such  claim,  and  therefore  when  before  that  Com- 
mittee I  had  no  such  thing  in  mind.  Some  time  later  the 
court  held  that  the  Helm  Committee  was  acting  illegally,  and 
thereupon  it  discontinued  its  investigation. 

June  7,  1911,  the  U.  S.  Senate  appointed  the  Dillingham 
Committee  to  investigate  the  new  charges  against  Senator 
Lorimer.  It  consisted  of  eight  Senators,  evenly  divided 

7 


EDWARD   MINES  TO   THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

politically,  four  Democrats  and  four  Republicans.  Long  before 
its  appointment  it  was  understood  throughout  the  country  that 
such  a  committee  would  be  appointed  and  would  make  such 
investigation. 

IGNORING  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

June  2,  1911,  a  communication  signed  by  seven  members  of 
the  Union  League  Club  was  presented  to  the  Board  of  Direc- 
tors, citing  the  Helm  Committee  report  and  asking  the  Board 
to  take  such  action  with  reference  to  me  as  would  seem 
appropriate.  On  the  same  day  the  Board  voted  to  have  me 
appear  before  it  on  June  5,  and  notified  me  to  then  appear 
and  make  a  statement. 

On  that  day  Mr.  Charles  L.  Allen,  my  personal  attorney,  went 
with  me  to  the  Club  and  said  to  the  Directors  that  as  the  Senate 
Committee  was  about  to  investigate  the  matters  in  question, 
it  would  be  improper  for  the  Directors  to  take  up  the  matter 
while  that  investigation  was  pending,  and  that  action  by  the 
Board  should  be  deferred  at  least  until  that  Senatorial  Com- 
mittee had  passed  upon  the  matter.  The  Board  held  a  con- 
ference, and  announced  to  us  that  it  would  not  proceed  at 
present;  leaving  the  inference  that  it  recognized  the  manifest 
impropriety  of  taking  any  action  while  the  Dillingham  Com- 
mittee was  investigating  and  that  the  Union  League  Board 
would  not  proceed  until  that  Committee  had  finished.  I  relied 
upon  this. 

Over  four  months  later,  to  my  surprise,  I  received  from 
the  Secretary  of  the  Board,  a  letter  dated  November  15,  1911, 
as  follows: 

"SECRETARY'S  OFFICE, 
UNION  LEAGUE  CLUB,  CHICAGO. 
Edward  Hines,  Esq. 

Lincoln  &  Blue  Island  Ave., 

Chicago,  111. 

Dear  Sir:  At  at  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Managers 
of  this  club,  held  November  I3th,  it  was  voted  to  hold  a 
special  meeting  of  the  Board  on  Monday,  November  20, 
1911,  at  4:30  p.  m.,  for  the  purpose  of  considering  certain 
charges  against  you,  embodied  in  a  communication  from 

8 


EDWARD   MINES  TO   THE   U.    L.   CLUB 

certain  members  of  the  Club,  dated  June  2,  1911,  relative 
to  your  conduct,  a  copy  of  which  communication  was  sent 
to  you  on  June  3rd.  At  this  meeting  of  the  Board  you  will 
be  given  an  opportunity  to  be  heard  in  your  defense,  pur- 
suant to  Section  9  of  Article  n  of  the  By-Laws. 

I  enclose  herewith  copy  of  certain  statements  made  to 
the  board  at  its  meeting  of  November  I3th  by  Mr.  Clarence 
S.  Funk,  and  I  desire  to  say  that,  if  you  so  desire,  you  will 
be  given  an  opportunity  to  question  Mr.  Funk  before  the 
Board  with  reference  to  such  statements. 
Very  truly  yours, 
(Signed)  WALTER  D.  HERRICK, 

Secretary. 
November  15,  1911. 

Enclosure.    Reg.  Mail." 

When  the  charges  of  June  2nd  and  June  5th  were  presented 
to  the  Board  it  was  announced  that  the  directors  would  not 
proceed.  This  was  an  evident  recognition  of  the  fact  that 
the  matter  was  formally  under  consideration  by  the  Dillingham 
Committee.  The  above  action  of  the  Board,  taken  four  months 
later  without  notice  to  me  or  my  counsel,  was  a  violation  of 
my  rights  and  a  disregard  of  all  precedent.  The  Board  took 
the  evidence  of  Funk  at  a  secret  meeting  to  which  I  was  not 
invited.  Neither  was  I  permitted  in  person  nor  by  counsel  to 
cross-examine  my  accuser.  This  ignored  the  understanding 
which  I  supposed  we  all  had. 

Owing  to  absence  from  the  city  I  did  not  receive  the  letter 
of  November  15  until  Saturday  the  i8th,  just  two  days  before 
the  Board  was  to  meet.  I  at  once  called  upon  the  President 
of  the  Club  and  informed  him  I  had  just  returned,  that  my 
counsel  was  out  of  the  city,  and  requested  that  the  matter 
be  temporarily  put  over.  He  told  me  this  could  not  be  done. 
He  gave  no  reason  whatever,  but  arbitrarily  insisted  that  I 
appear.  Thereupon  I  telegraphed  my  counsel,  Mr.  Charles  L. 
Allen,  of  Herrick,  Allen  &  Martin  and  he  arrived  in  Chicago 
on  the  2oth,  and  on  that  day  I  sent  the  Board  the  following 
letter : 


EDWARD   MINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

CHICAGO,  NOVEMBER  2oth,  1911. 

To  the  Board  of  Managers  of  the  Union  League  Club, 
Chicago,  Illinois. 

Dear  Sirs :  I  have  received  by  mail  from  Mr.  Herrick, 
the  Secretary  of  the  Club,  a  communication  of  the  I5th 
instant,  stating  that  at  a  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Managers 
of  the  Club,  held  the  I3th  instant,  it  was  voted  to  hold  a 
special  meeting  of  the  Board  on  Monday,  the  2oth  instant, 
at  4:30  P.  M.,  for  the  purpose  of  considering  certain 
charges  against  me,  embodied  in  a  communication  to  the 
Board  from  certain  members  of  the  Club,  dated  June  2nd, 
1911,  relative  to  my  conduct,  and  that,  at  the  proposed 
meeting  I  would  be  given  an  opportunity  to  be  heard  in 
my  defense,  pursuant  to  Section  n  of  Article  9  of  the 
By-Laws.  The  letter  also  enclosed  a  copy  of  certain  state- 
ments made  to  the  Board,  at  a  meeting  held  on  November 
I3th,  1911,  by  Mr.  Clarence  S.  Funk,  and  stated  that  if  I 
desired  I  would  be  given  an  opportunity  to  question  Mr. 
Funk  before  the  Board. 

Owing  to  my  absence  from  the  city  I  did  not  receive 
Mr.  Herrick's  letter  of  the  I5th  instant  until  after  my 
return  on  Saturday,  the  i8th  instant. 

I  at  once  communicated  with  the  President  of  the  Club, 
and  informed  him  that  I  had  just  returned,  and  also  that 
my  counsel  was  out  of  the  city,  and  I  requested  that  the 
matter  be  temporarily  put  over.  He,  however,  told  me 
that  this  could  not  be  done.  I  thereupon  telegraphed  to 
my  counsel  to  return  to  the  city,  as  I  wished  to  confer 
with  him,  and  he  arrived  in  Chicago  today  and  I  have 
had  an  interview  with  him. 

I  am  willing  at  any  time  to  appear  before  the  Board, 
and  have  any  proper  charges  that  are  made  against  me, 
investigated.  I  am,  however,  advised  that,  under  the  By- 
Laws  of  the  Club,  I  am  entitled  to  have  charges  made 
against  me  in  proper  form  and  to  be  furnished  with  a  copy 
of  such  charges  and  given  a  reasonable  opportunity  to 
defend. 

I  am  also  advised  that  the  communication  from  certain 
members  of  the  Club  to  you,  dated  June  2nd,  1911,  above 
referred  to,  does  not  constitute  such  charges  as  I  am  in 
reason  and  in  law  entitled  to  have  preferred  against  me 
before  I  can  be  required  to  appear  before  your  Board  in 
my  defense. 

I  will  add  that  if  any  of  the  matters  referred  to  in  the 

10 


EDWARD   MINES  TO   THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

communication  of  June  2nd,  1911,  are  to  be  put  in  such 
shape  as  to  constitute  charges  which  I  am  to  answer,  it 
may  be  necessary  for  me  to  bring  before  you,  in  addition 
to  witnesses  residing  in  this  State,  a  number  of  important 
witnesses  who  have  no  personal  interest  in  the  matter,  and 
who  do  not  reside  in  this  State,  and  whose  presence  at 
such  hearing  I  have  no  legal  means  of  compelling.  In 
such  case,  I  should  endeavor  to  have  them  present  as  soon 
as  practicable,  but  you  will  understand  that,  to  a  certain 
extent,  I  would  have  to  consult  their  convenience  and 
their  other  engagements. 

I  am  also  advised  that  if  any  charges  are  preferred 
against  me,  I  am  entitled  to  be  represented  by  counsel  at 
any  hearing  of  the  charges.  I  will  add  that  the  fact  that 
I  am  not  a  lawyer  myself,  and  that  there  are  leading 
lawyers  among  your  number,  and  the  further  fact  that  a 
proper  hearing  of  the  matter  may  require  the  cross  exam- 
ination of  the  witnesses  against  me,  and  the  examination 
of  many  witnesses  on  my  behalf,  are  additional  reasons 
why  I  should  be  represented  by  counsel,  and  that  it  does 
not  seem  to  be  fair  that  under  the  circumstances  I  should 
be  asked  to  conduct  the  hearing  myself. 

I  think  it  proper  for  me  to  further  state  that  the  entire 
subject  matter  of  the  communication  dated  June  2nd,  1911, 
and  of  the  report  of  the  Illinois  Committee,  from  which 
it  quotes  at  length,  have  been  under  investigation  by  a 
Committee  of  the  United  States  Senate,  in  the  matter  of 
the  proceedings  relating  to  the  election  of  William  Lorimer 
to  that  body.  In  the  course  of  those  proceedings,  the 
Committee  had  power  to  compel  the  appearance  before  it 
of  all  witnesses  necessary  to  enable  it  to  arrive  at  the 
exact  truth  of  the  situation,  and  a  large  number  of  wit- 
nesses were  examined.  This  Committee  has  not  concluded 
its  investigation,  and  I  am  informed  that  it  is  expected 
that  other  witnesses  will  be  examined  by  it  touching  the 
particular  subject  matter,  but  that  a  report  of  the  com- 
mittee may  be  expected  soon.  While  I  am  not  a  party  to 
those  proceedings,  the  report  of  the  Committee,  which  will 
be  in  its  nature  a  judicial  finding,  will  no  doubt  determine 
many  of  the  points  referred  to  in  the  communication  of 
June  2nd,  1911,  including  any  points  which  may  be  con- 
sidered as  referring  to  me. 

Under  these  circumstances,  it  seems  to  me  fair  that  you 


EDWARD   HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

should  await  the  result  of  the   Senatorial   investigation 
before  proceeding  in  this  matter. 

I  will  add  that  the  statements  by  Mr.  Clarence  S.  Funk, 
of  which  a  copy  was  enclosed  in  your  Secretary's  letter, 
were  made,  as  appears  from  the  statements  in  answer  to 
questions  asked  by  one  of  the  members  of  the  Board,  at 
a  meeting  of  the  Board  at  which  I  was  not  present,  and 
of  which  I  had  no  notice,  and  at  which  Mr.  Funk  had 
been  invited  by  the  Board  to  be  present,  and  that  I  am 
advised  that  if  any  charges  are  preferred  against  me,  I 
have  the  right  to  be  present,  and  also  to  be  represented 
by  counsel,  when  any  witnesses  are  examined  in  support 
of  them. 

Yours  very  truly, 

EDWARD  HINES. 

The  Secretary  replied  under  date  of  Dec.  5  as  follows : 
UNION  LEAGUE  CLUB,  CHICAGO. 

SECRETARY'S  OFFICE, 

DECEMBER  5,  1911. 
Edward  Hines,  Esq., 

Lincoln  and  Blue  Island  Ave. 

Chicago,  111. 

Dear  Sir:  Referring  to  my  letter  to  you  of  November 
i5th,  1911,  and  to  your  communication  of  November  2oth, 
1911,  addressed  to  the  Board  of  Managers  of  the  Union 
League  Club,  I  beg  to  advise  that  the  Board  regards  the 
communication  of  June  2,  1911,  as  well  as  the  statement 
of  Mr.  Funk  before  the  Board,  as  sufficiently  specific 
to  advise  you  as  to  the  matters  relative  to  your  conduct, 
which  the  Board  has  decided  to  investigate. 

As  to  your  request  that  you  be  permitted  to  be  rep- 
resented by  counsel,  the  Board  considers  that  the  By-Laws 
of  the  Club  do  not  contemplate  this  as  a  matter  of  right, 
but  has  nevertheless  decided  to  accord  you  this  privilege. 
The  Board  will  sit  in  the  Club  house  Saturday,  Decem- 
ber 16,  1911,  at  2  :oo  p.  m.,  for  the  purpose  of  affording  a 
hearing  upon  the  matters  in  question  and  at  that  time 
the  issue  will  be  confined  to  the  alleged  interview  between 
yourself  and  Mr.  Funk  in  the  Clubhouse,  referred  to  in 
his  statement  before  the  Board  and  in  the  communication 
of  June  2,  1911. 

You  are  hereby  notified  to  appear  before  the  Board  at 
the  time  and  place  as  above  stated,  and  to  produce  such 

12 


EDWARD   MINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

testimony  as  you  may  desire  to  offer  with  reference  to  the 
single  issue  above  referred  to. 

Very  truly  yours, 

(Signed)  WALTER  D.  HERRICK, 

Secretary. 

Upon  Dec.  16  the  hearing  was  postponed  as  per  the  following 
letter  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Board,  dated  Dec.  20,  1911 : 

UNION  LEAGUE  CLUB,  CHICAGO. 

SECRETARY'S  OFFICE. 
Edward  Hines,  Esq., 

Lincoln  and  Blue  Island  Ave., 

Chicago,  111. 

Dear  Sir :  At  the  request  of  your  counsel,  the  hearing 
set  for  December  i6th  was  again  postponed,  and  we  have 
succeeded  in  arranging  for  such  a  hearing  at  the  time 
suggested  by  your  counsel;  namely,  Tuesday,  January  2, 
1912,  at  3  =30  p.  m. 

The  Board  of  Managers  will  sit  in  the  Club  house  at 
this  time,  and  you  will  be  required  and  are  hereby  invited 
to  appear  before  the  Board  at  such  time  and  produce  such 
witnesses  and  testimony  as  you  may  desire  to  offer,  in 
regard  to  the  alleged  conversation  between  yourself  and 
Mr.  Funk  at  the  Club  house. 

Very  truly  yours, 

(Signed)  WALTER  D.  HERRICK, 

Secretary. 
December  20,  1911. 

Up  to  this  time  I  had  as  my  counsel  Mr.  Allen,  who  had 
full  knowledge  of  these  matters.  He  was  not  a  member  of 
the  Club.  The  Board  did  not  want  counsel  to  appear  for 
me  who  was  not  a  member,  and  especially  requested  that  I 
have  counsel  to  represent  me  who  was  a  member.  In  pursuance 
of  that  request  and  to  show  my  willingness  to  act  in  harmony 
with  the  views  of  the  Board,  I  retained  other  counsel,  and 
was  represented  by  Mr.  Marquis  Eaton,  of  the  firm  of  Defrees, 
Buckingham,  Ritter,  Campbell  and  Eaton,  who  was  a  member 
of  the  Club,  but  up  to  that  time  wholly  unfamiliar  with  these 
matters.  On  December  22,  Mr.  Eaton  sent  the  following  letter 
to  the  Board : 

13 


EDWARD   MINES  TO   THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

DECEMBER  22,  1911. 
Mr.  Walter  D.  Herrick, 

Secretary  Union  League  Club, 
Chicago,  Illinois. 

Dear  Sir:  Mr.  Edward  Hines  personally  and  through 
his  General  Counsel,  Messrs.  Herrick,  Allen  and  Martin, 
made  the  request  of  us  on  Wednesday,  December  2oth, 
that  we  represent  him  in  any  hearing  before  the  Board  of 
Managers  of  the  Union  League  Club  growing  out  of  a 
certain  statement  addressed  to  the  Board  of  Managers 
purporting  to  bear  date  June  2,  1911,  and  to  be  signed  by 
F.  B.  Johnstone  and  others. 

Although  our  firm  has  had  no  previous  acquaintance 
of  any  kind  with  the  matter  in  controversy,  and  although 
this  lack  of  acquaintance  is  manifestly  somewhat  to  the 
disadvantage  of  Mr.  Hines,  he  feels,  as  do  his  general 
counsel,  that  it  best  accords  with  the  proprieties  of  the 
situation  for  him  to  be  represented  in  this  matter  by  coun- 
sel who  are  members  of  the  Union  League  Club. 

We  accordingly  advise  you  that  we  shall  appear  for 
Mr.  Hines  in  connection  with  any  hearing  before  the 
Board  of  Managers.  We  beg,  however,  to  suggest  with 
all  respect  to  the  members  of  the  Board  of  Managers, 
that  the  pendency  of  a  formal  investigation  by  a  com- 
mittee of  the  United  States  Senate  of  the  precise  matter 
which  appears  to  be  the  subject  of  inquiry  by  the  board, 
ought  to  be  deemed  a  compelling  reason  for  the  Board's 
deferring  its  consideration. 

As  has  been  stated  to  your  board,  Mr.  Hines  is  pre- 
pared to  proceed  with  the  hearing  on  January  2,  1912,  or 
at  any  other  time  the  Board  may  fix.  However,  the 
reasons  for  the  postponement  seem  to  us  to  be  of  such 
weight  and  importance  that  we  desire  to  submit  them  in 
detail  to  your  Board,  and  we  shall  do  so  by  a  separate 
letter  within  the  next  two  or  three  days. 
Very  truly  yours, 

DEFREES,  BUCKINGHAM,  RITTER,  CAMPBELL  &  EATON, 

By  Marquis  Eaton. 

On  the  26th  of  December,  1911,  Mr.  Eaton  sent  another  letter 
to  the  Board,  as  follows : 


EDWARD   MINES  TO   THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

DECEMBER  26,  1911. 
Mr.  Walter  D.  Herrick, 

Secretary  Union  League  Club, 
Chicago. 

Dear  Sir:  In  the  matter  of  the  inquiry  by  the  Board 
of  Managers  of  the  Union  League  Club  with  respect  to 
certain  charges  against  Edward  Hines. 

In  accordance  with  our  letter  of  December  22nd,  we  beg 
to  submit  to  the  Board  of  Managers  the  following  sug- 
gestions in  support  of  our  request  for  a  continuance  of  the 
hearing  in  the  above  matter. 

The  alleged  conversation  between  Edward  Hines  and 
Clarence  S.  Funk  referred  to  in  your  letter  of  December 
2oth,  addressed  to  Mr.  Hines  has  been  since  June  2oth, 
1911,  the  subject  of  most  searching  inquiry  by  a  committee 
of  the  United  States  Senate,  composed  of  Senators  Dill- 
ingham,  Gamble,  Jones,  Kenyon,  Johnston,  Fletcher,  Kern 
and  Lea. 

This  inquiry  has  been  conducted  under  a  resolution  of 
the  United  States  Senate  adopted  June  7th,  1911.  In 
pursuing  the  inquiry  the  Committee  has  had  the  assistance 
of  most  able  counsel,  who,  with  the  approval  of  the  Com- 
mittee, has  made  it  a  matter  of  record  in  that  proceeding 
that  he  considered  it  his  duty  to  get  in  touch  with  any 
man  "who  pretends  to  know  anything  about"  the  matter 
under  inquiry. 

It  is  a  matter  of  common  knowledge  that  the  investi- 
gation by  the  Dillingham  Committee  was  inspired  by  the 
report  of  the  special  Investigating  Committee  appointed 
by  the  Senate  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  known  as  the  "Helm 
Committee."  The  charges  under  consideration  by  the 
Board  of  Managers  of  the  Union  League  Club  on  their 
face  relate  to  the  same  report.  When  these  charges  were 
filed  under  date  of  June  2nd,  1911,  they  stood  of  record 
without  formal  answer ;  since  that  time  sworn  answer, 
definite  to  the  least  detail,  has  been  made  by  Edward 
Hines  in  his  examination  before  the  Dillingham  Com- 
mittee. This  Committee  has  conducted  its  examination  of 
all  witnesses  under  oath,  and  every  witness,  whose  infor- 
mation could  have  any  possible  bearing  in  the  developing 
of  the  facts  with  reference  to  the  conversation  at  the 
Union  League  Club,  has  been  searchingly  examined. 

It  had  been  supposed  that  the  Dillingham  Committee 
would  conclude  its  hearing  before  January  ist,  1912,  but 

15 


EDWARD   HINES  TO  THE   U.    L.   CLUB 

this  was  found  to  be  impracticable,  and  the  Committee 
will,  on  January  8th,  1912,  resume  at  Washington  its 
sessions  for  the  purpose  of  examining  Senator  Lorimer, 
and  such  other  witnesses  as  the  Committee  shall  itself 
designate. 

Mr.  Hines  has  been  notified  that  his  presence  in  Wash- 
ington during  the  final  session  of  the  Committee  is  required 
by  the  Committee,  and  in  obedience  thereto  he  has  arranged 
to  be  in  Washington  for  conference  with  counsel  a  few 
days  prior  to  January  8th,  and  he  will  remain  there  until 
the  Committee  releases  him. 

The  investigation  at  Washington  is  judicial  in  its  char- 
acter. The  Senatorial  Committee  has  taken  jurisdiction 
of  the  entire  subject  matter.  So  far  from  excusing  Mr. 
Hines  from  further  attendance,  it  has  indicated  that  it 
desires  him  to  be  on  call  until  its  final  session.  Without 
doubt  it  will  make  a  formal  finding  of  fact  with  respect  to 
the  identical  matter  under  consideration  by  your  Board  of 
Managers.  While  this  finding  might  not  be  deemed  con- 
trolling in  the  disposition  of  the  charges,  so  far  as  the 
Club  is  concerned,  it  appears  to  us  that  fair  consideration 
to  Mr.  Hines,  as  well  as  reasonable  courtesy  to  the  Sena- 
torial Committee  demands  postponement  of  the  Club 
inquiry  until  the  deliberations  of  the  Dillingham  Commit- 
tee (and  the  consequent  obligation  of  Mr.  Hines  to  that 
Committee)  are  concluded. 

If  the  matter  is  called  for  hearing  by  the  Board  of  Man- 
agers on  January  2nd,  as  your  letter  of  December  2Oth 
indicates,  we  shall  appear  for  Mr.  Hines  and  urge  with 
earnestness  and  candor  the  postponement  of  the  hearing. 
As  counsel  in  the  matter,  we  take  full  responsibility  for 
advising  that  Mr.  Hines'  request  and  urge  the  propriety 
of  a  postponement,  and  with  the  indulgence  of  the  Board 
we  shall  orally  amplify  at  that  time  the  suggestions  made 
herein. 

Mr.  Hines  will  personally  attend  before  the  Board  on 
January  2nd,  and  will  testify  if  the  Board  of  Managers 
insist,  against  our  objection  made  on  his  behalf,  that  the 
inquiry  proceed  at  that  time. 
Very  respectfully, 

DEFREES,  BUCKINGHAM,  RITTER,  CAMPBELL  &  EATON, 

By  Marquis  Eaton. 

Again,  on  Jan.  2  when  we  appeared  before  the  Board  in 

16 


EDWARD   MINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

accordance  with  the  notice  from  the  Secretary  informing  me 
that  the  hearing  would  commence  on  that  date,  Mr.  Eaton 
informed  the  Board  that  I  was  already  under  summons  to 
appear  before  the  United  States  Senate  Committee,  and  urged 
the  Board  to  consider  that  the  Dillingham  Committee  was 
investigating  these  matters,  and  that  the  matter  sought  to  be 
inquired  into  should  be  reserved  for  presentation  to  that 
Committee,  that  I  had  been  so  advised  by  my  general  counsel, 
that  there  was  no  emergency  existing  which  required  the  Board 
to  proceed  while  the  Dillingham  Committee  was  investigating, 
and  that  I  should  not  be  put  under  the  pressure  of  having  to 
answer  both  to  the  Board  and  the  United  States  Senate 
Committee. 

SUSPICIOUS    HASTE   OF   THE   BOARD 

What  was  the  occasion  for  haste  by  the  directors?  They 
had  waited  from  June  2  to  Nov.  13  without  taking  any  steps, 
and  the  time  then  passed  until  Jan.  2,  and  during  these  periods 
the  Dillingham  Committee  was  pursuing  its  investigation 
assiduously  and  had  nearly  completed  the  same.  That  Sena- 
torial Committee  had  ample  power  to  compel  the  attendance 
of  witnesses  from  all  parts  of  the  country,  and  to  put  these 
witnesses  under  oath  to  get  at  the  facts,  and  its  investigation, 
which  was  practically  completed  at  that  time,  was  of  the  most 
extensive  and  thorough  character.  The  Dillingham  Committee 
was  exercising  judicial  functions,  and  its  findings  in  these 
matters  would  be  in  a  sense  judicially  authoritative. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Union 
League  Club  had  no  such  powers  or  authority.  They  could 
not  compel  the  attendance  of  a  single  witness  from  anywhere, 
not  even  in  the  City  of  Chicago.  They  had  no  power  to 
administer  an  oath  to  a  witness  nor  could  I  compel  the  at- 
tendance of  any  witnesses  before  the  Board  on  my  behalf.  As 
you  will  see  later,  I  did  have  to  bring  many  witnesses  from 
outside  the  State  and  from  as  far  away  as  Washington  and 
Baltimore,  and  I  had  to  defray  the  expense  of  securing  their 
attendance.  All  this  placed  an  unnecessary  burden  upon  me, 
to  say  nothing  of  my  own  loss  of  time  and  expense  for  the 

17 


EDWARD  MINES  TO  THE   U.   L.  CLUB 

services  of  counsel.  No  harm  could  come  from  the  Board 
waiting  a  little  longer  and  getting  the  decision  of  the  Senate 
Committee.  Despite  all  this,  the  Board  refused  to  wait  and 
compelled  me  to  proceed.  But  for  the  circumstances  which  I 
have  set  forth,  I  should  not  have  objected  to  going  ahead  and 
would  have  been  perfectly  willing  to  do  so.  Under  those 
conditions  the  Board's  action  was  grossly  unjust  to  me. 

Prior  to  the  beginning  of  the  hearings  certain  members  of 
the  Board  came  to  me  and  asked  me  to  resign.  I  unhesitatingly 
refused.  I  construed  this  request  to  mean  that  those  making  it 
had  been  misled  into  assuming  that  I  was  guilty  as  charged. 
I  was  so  sure  of  my  case,  so  certain  that  the  evidence  at  my 
command  could  not  be  questioned  that  I  was  eager  to  present 
it  to  my  fellow  club  members,  never  doubting  for  an  instant 
that  it  would  result  in  a  speedy  and  unanimous  acquittal,  and 
relieve  me  of  suspicion  in  the  minds  of  my  fellow  members. 
/  realize  now  that  those  who  asked  me  to  tender  my  resignation 
desired,  not  to  spare  me,  but  to  evade  the  personal  responsibility 
of  decreeing  my  expulsion. 

The  hearings  proceeded.  The  Board  admitted  a  great  mass 
of  improper  and  frivolous  evidence  against  me  and  pure  hear- 
say testimony,  which  I  am  advised  is  not  proper  evidence.  It 
allowed  Funk  and  his  counsel  free  reign  in  introducing  any 
kind  of  testimony  that  they  desired,  whether  it  was  proper  or 
not.  The  Board  raised  and  permitted  to  be  raised  questions 
which  compelled  me,  with  scarcely  any  notice  or  time  to  do 
so,  to  procure  witnesses  from  various  distant  points  of  the 
country  with  reference  to  facts  which  the  Board  at  one  time 
conceded  to  be  true,  and  later  pretended  to  doubt  and  arbi- 
trarily opened  up  again. 

MANIFEST  BIAS  OF  THE  BOARD 

In  fact,  certain  members  of  the  Board,  from  the  very  begin- 
ning until  the  end  of  the  hearing,  manifested  distinct 
unfriendliness  to  me  personally  and  maintained  an  antagonistic 
attitude  towards  my  side  of  the  case,  including  witnesses  for  me. 
Even  when  Funk's  lawyers  had  cross-examined  me  and  my 

18 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE  U.   L.   CLUB 

witnesses  all  that  they  could,  certain  members  of  the  Board 
then  undertook  to  cross-examine  further  in  the  evident  effort 
to  discover  something  unfavorable  to  me.  Their  antagonistic 
spirit  was  markedly  apparent. 

On  the  other  hand,  their  attitude  toward  Funk  and  his 
witnesses  was  friendly  and  noticeably  favorable!  Many  of  the 
questions  put  and  the  comments  made  by  certain  members 
clearly  indicated  that  they  had  prejudged  my  case  and  were 
eagerly  seeking  a  pretext  to  support  a  determination  against  me 
which  they  had  already  made!  All  the  way  through,  it  was 
quite  evident  to  my  mind,  and  I  think  will  be  to  yours  when 
you  have  read  this  statement  of  facts,  that  my  expulsion  was 
predetermined  by  certain  members  of  the  Board,  and  that  they 
carried  out  their  program.  In  pursuance  of  that  program, 
after  apparently  letting  the  matter  drop  on  account  of  the 
pendency  of  the  Senate  Committee  proceedings,  they,  without 
any  notice  to  me,  secretly  invited  Funk  to  appear  and  give  his 
testimony  in  the  absence  of  myself,  the  accused  person !  This, 
I  claim,  was  in  violation  of  all  principles  of  fairness  to  me,  and 
showed  a  deliberate  intention  on  the  part  of  those  members 
to  forestall  the  evidence  on  my  side. 

Whatever  may  be  said  of  the  method  of  conducting  such 
proceedings  in  a  Club,  the  least  that  can  be  truthfully  said 
is  that  the  Board  should  be  fair,  and  that  it  should  be  just  as 
careful  as  a  court  to  protect  the  rights  of  one  fellow  member 
as  those  of  any  other.  The  best  interests  of  the  Club,  to  say 
nothing  of  common  decency,  would  require  that. 

But  all  through  the  hearing  it  was  noticeable  that  certain 
members  took  it  for  granted  from  the  beginning  that  I  was 
guilty  of  something,  and  the  burden  was  placed  upon  me  to 
prove  myself  innocent!  This  was  a  complete  reversal  of  the 
doctrine  which  everybody  understands,  that  a  man  is  presumed 
innocent  until  he  is  proved  guilty. 

MY   TRUE  RELATION  TO   THE  SENATORIAL  ELECTION 

I  never,  directly  or  indirectly,  contributed,  nor  did  any  com- 
pany in  which  I  am  interested,  contribute  a  dollar  to  any  fund 

19 


EDWARD   HINES  TO   THE   U.    L.   CLUB 

to  aid  in  the  election  of  Senator  Lorimer,  nor  did  I  solicit  any 
contribution  to  such  a  fund,  nor  did  any  such  fund  ever  exist 
to  my  knowledge! 

I  was  not  in  the  city  of  Springfield,  Illinois,  at  the  time  of 
nor  for  five  years  before  that  Senatorial  election! 

Some  weeks  before  Mr.  Lorimer  had  been  mentioned  as  a 
candidate  for  the  Senate,  I  was  in  Washington.  I  was  in  the 
lumber  business  and  naturally  interested  in  the  tariff  on  lum- 
ber. By  reason  of  this  I  was  at  different  times  before  com- 
mittees of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives,  and  thus 
came  in  contact  with  the  members  of  those  committees, 
amongst  others,  Senators  Aldrich  and  Penrose.  What  is 
known  as  the  Senatorial  deadlock  at  Springfield  occurred,  and 
"Administration"  Republicans  at  Washington  became  anxious 
to  have  that  deadlock  broken.  Both  Senator  Aldrich  and 
Senator  Penrose  spoke  to  me  upon  that  subject,  showing  a 
desire — in  case  Senator  Hopkins  could  not  be  elected — that 
the  Republicans  of  the  Illinois  Legislature  should  find  some 
man  upon  whom  they  could  unite  and  elect ;  and  it  was  desired 
that  I  exert  myself  towards  securing  such  a  result.  I  suggested 
at  different  times  the  names  of  ex-Congressman  Boutell  and 
Mr.  A.  C.  Bartlett,  both  of  Chicago,  but  it  was  learned  that 
they  would  probably  not  be  available. 

THE   SENATORIAL   DEADLOCK 

The  deadlock  in  Springfield  continued.  The  anxiety  to  have 
it  broken  increased  as  the  time  for  consideration  of  the  tariff 
approached,  and  it  was  suggested  that  I  ascertain  from  Senator 
Lorimer  whether  he  would  become  a  candidate.  I  communi- 
cated with  him,  but  he  declined.  Later,  the  suggestion  was 
again  made  and  efforts  were  renewed  to  have  him  announce 
himself  as  a  candidate,  but  while  he  refused  to  so  announce 
himself,  the  belief  was  becoming  general  that  he  would  become 
a  candidate.  What  followed  in  Washington  was  testified  to  by 
myself,  Senators  Penrose  and  Aldrich  before  the  Dillingham 
Committee.  I  testified : 

About  May  18  or  20  Mr.  Aldrich  sent  for  me  again 

20 


EDWARD  MINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

said  that  the  conditions  in  Illinois  indicated  that  no  Sen- 
ator would  be  elected,  and  the  Legislature  would  end  in  a 
deadlock;  and  either  from  what  he  had  heard  from  some 
source,  or  upon  his  own  idea — I  do  not  know  which — he 
said  that  it  seemed  to  him  that  Congressman  Lorimer  could 
be  elected  from  that  State.  He  wanted  to  know  if  I  would 
see  or  telephone  Congressman  Lorimer  and  urge  upon  him, 
if  it  was  a  possibility,  to  become  a  candidate,  or  assist  in 
electing  some  Republican  at  the  earliest  date  possible.  That 
conversation  occurred  in  his  office.  The  next  day  or  two 
afterward  he  telephoned  me  to  meet  him  at  his  house  in 
the  evening. 

I  went  there  by  appointment  and  he  left  word  that  he 
was  called  suddenly  to  a  night  session  of  the  Senate 
Finance  Committee,  down  in  the  rooms  of  this  building, 
and  for  me  to  come  there.  I  went  down  in  the  evening  a 
little  after  9  o'clock  and  waited  until  he  got  through.  I 
should  judge  it  was  somewhere  close  to  10  o'clock.  Then 
he  came  out  from  the  Finance  Committee  room  and  told 
me  he  had  sent  for  me  to  discuss  the  Illinois  situation.  He 
said:  "I  should  like  to  have  you  go  to  the  White  House 
this  evening  with  me  and  discuss  with  the  President  the 
Illinois  situation."  *  *  *  He  finally  telephoned  the 
President,  in  my  presence,  and  asked  if  he  could  see  him 
if  he  went  there  at  that  time.  This  was  half-past  ten.  I 
remember  distinctly  his  stating :  "It  is  now  half -past  ten ; 
if  I  come  up  now  can  I  see  you  for  a  talk  on  an  important 
matter?"  He  did  not  mention  the  subject.  I  do  not  know 
what  the  reply  was,  but  when  he  got  through  he  said  that 
the  President  was  practically  through  with  his — I  think 
he  said  his  appointments,  and  that  he  was  free  to  see  him ; 
and  he  asked  me  to  go  to  the  White  House  with  him.  I 
replied  and  stated  that  I  felt  that  it  would  be  better  if  I 
did  not  go  to  the  White  House  with  him.  I  said :  "Pos- 
sibly the  President  might  be  somewhat  embarrassed  to  talk 
over  the  situation  with  me,  and  I  think  it  would  be  better 
if  I  do  not  go  to  the  White  House  and  you  go  alone/' 
He  replied,  urging  me  to  go  with  him.  Finally,  upon  my 
stating  again  my  thought  that  it  would  be  better  if  I  did 
not  go,  he  said:  "All  right,  you  come  to  my  house  and 
wait  until  I  get  back  from  the  White  House."  He  and 
I  went  up  to  his  house  in  his  car  and  I  waited  there  until 
some  time  about  12  o'clock,  when  he  returned.  When  he 
returned  he  told  me  he  had  had  a  long  talk  with  the  Presi- 

21 


EDWARD   H1NES  TO  THE   U.    L.   CLUB 

dent  about  the  situation.  *  *  *  He  said  that  the  ad- 
ministration was  very  anxious  to  have  a  Senator  elected 
before  the  Legislature  adjourned,  and  that  they  felt  that 
Congressman  Lorimer  might  be  elected  Senator,  and  they 
wished  to  have  me  emphasize  to  him  the  importance — if 
there  was  a  possibility  of  it — of  his  becoming  a  candidate 
and  doing  all  he  could  to  be  elected  at  the  earliest  possible 
moment. 

I  asked  Senator  Aldrich  what  I  could  do  in  the  matter. 
He  said :  "I  would  like  to  have  you  go  to  a  long  distance 
telephone  and  call  up  Congressman  Lorimer  at  Springfield 
and  emphasize  that  fact."  I  said,  "Supposing  that  the 
Congressman  would  like  to  have  that  confirmed  in  a  letter 
or  telegram?  Am  I  authorized  to  do  that?"  He  said: 
"You  are;  and  you  can  state  further  that  if  the  Governor 
or  any  of  the  leading  people  at  Springfield  question  this 
authority  they  can  telegraph  me  or  Senator  Penrose,  and, 
if  necessary,  the  President." 

I  went  from  his  house  to  the  Willard  Hotel,  some  time 
after  12  o'clock  at  night,  and  called  Congressman  Lorimer 
at  Springfield  over  the  long  distance  telephone.  I  said : 
"Mr.  Lorimer,  I  have  just  returned  from  Senator  Aldrich's 
house.  He  has  just  come  from  the  White  House.  The 
President  and  he  are  very  anxious  to  have  you  become  a 
candidate,  and  think  you  could  be  elected.  They  will  do 
all  they  can  to  assist.  What  can  they  do?"  I  can  not 
quote  the  exact  words  he  replied,  but  he  seemed  to  be 
somewhat  surprised  over  the  mention  of  the  President's 
name.  I  said:  "There  is  no  question  about  the  matter, 
because  I  have  just  come  from  Senator  Aldrich's  house, 
and  he  has  just  come  from  the  President." 

Mr.  Lorimer  said :  "Mr.  Hines,  could  you  have  Senator 
Aldrich  send  me  a  telegram  confirming  this  ?"  He  says : 
"I  might  want  to  show  that  to  the  Governor  or  a  few  inti- 
mate"— I  think  he  said  "friends,"  or  he  might  have  used 
some  other  term ;  but  I  understood  it  as  meaning  the  Gov- 
ernor and  two  or  three  other  people.  I  told  him  that  I 
was  authorized  to  send  that  telegram.  He  said:  "Please 
send  it."  I  said :  "Will  you  become  a  candidate  ?  What 
are  your  prospects?"  He  said:  "At  this  time  I  can  not 
say.  After  the  telegram  I  will  give  the  matter  considera- 
tion." I  immediately  sent  the  telegram. 


22 


EDWARD   MINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

TESTIMONY  OF  SENATOR  PENROSE 

Senator  Penrose  testified  before  the  Dillingham  Committee 
(p.  1791)  that  he  met  me  during  the  tariff  discussion  and  the 
meetings  of  the  committee  concerning  the  duty  on  lumber; 
that  he  was  much  interested  in  my  views  and  saw  me  fre- 
quently; that  he  discussed  with  me  the  Illinois  Senatorial 
election  (p.  1792).  Here  is  the  gist  of  the  testimony  of  Senator 
Penrose : 

Aside  from  Mr.  Hopkins,  the  names  of  Mr.  Lowden 
and  Mr.  Boutell  were  mentioned;  "Mr.  Hines  seemed  to 
favor  Mr.  Boutell" ;  but  afterwards  said  it  did  not  appear 
that  a  union  could  be  made  on  him;  (1793)  and  "then 
within  a  little  while  it  was  suggested  that  Congressman 
Lorimer  might  be  the  man.  *  *  *  ."  Mr.  Hines  said 
that  Mr.  Lorimer  was  so  engaged  in  his  waterways  project 
that  it  was  doubtful  whether  he  could  be  induced  to  go 
into  the  contest,  that  he  certainly  did  not  want  to  go  to  the 
Senate.  "I  probably  urged  Mr.  Hines,  as  a  citizen  of 
Chicago,  to  use  his  best  efforts  to  bring  about  some 
result";  that  it  was  desirable  to  have  the  senatorial  seat 
filled;  (1794)  "Mr.  Hines  impressed  me  simply  as  being 
interested  in  the  matter  as  a  business  man  and  a  citizen 
who  had  the  welfare  of  the  Republican  party  at  heart  and 
of  the  American  government,  I  did  not  look  on  him  as 
a  person  who  was  active  in  politics  or  particularly  identi- 
fied with  politics."  In  April,  I  think,  I  sent  for  Mr.  Hines 
and  asked  him  to  find  out  whether  the  Illinois  Legislature 
was  liable  to  adjourn  without  electing  a  Senator.  Mr. 
Hines  reported  to  me  from  time  to  time,  as  I  met  him  on 
the  tariff  legislation,  as  to  conditions  in  Illinois.  I  may 
have  gone  with  him  to  Senator  Aldrich's  room,  and  prob- 
ably did  when  the  senatorial  matter  might  have  been  dis- 
cussed. "I  think  Senator  Aldrich  felt  very  much  as  I  did 
about  the  general  proposition,  that  the  senatorial  vacancy 
ought  to  be  filled  for-  the  good  of  the  government."  (1795) 
I  think  Mr.  Hines  said  something  to  me  to  the  effect  that 
he  might  call  upon  me  to  verify  in  some  way  with  the  citi- 
zens the  interest  which  I  and  Senator  Aldrich  and  Presi- 
dent Taft  had  in  this  situation,  something  of  that  kind. 
Under  the  circumstances,  I  would  have  been  willing  to 
indicate  a  strong  wish  for  Mr.  Lorimer's  selection.  In 
the  month  of  May,  1909,  shortly  before  the  election  of 

23 


HOWARD   H1NES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

Mr.  Lorimer,  I  think  Mr.  Hines  went  to  Chicago  with  the 
thought  that  he  could  state,  certainly  so  far  as  I  was  con- 
cerned, that  it  was  very  desirable  to  have  the  vacancy 
filled.  I  was  for  Mr.  Lorimer  at  the  last. 

On  page  1796  the  Senator  tells  how  he  figured  it,  and 
that  his  endorsement  of  Mr.  Lorimer  would  assist  in  the 
matter.  "I  have  been  in  Senator  Aldrich's  committee 
room  with  Mr.  Hines,  and  talked  over  the  *  *  *  sen- 
atorial matters.  (1797)  I  think  that  Senator  Aldrich  occu- 
pied pretty  nearly  the  same  position  that  I  did.  He  wanted 
to  see  the  seat  filled." 

Q.  (1798)  "And  you  either  said,  or  gave  Mr.  Hines  to 
understand,  that  if  anybody  in  Illinois  wanted  to  refer  to 
you,  as  to  your  feeling  or  disposition  as  to  the  election  of 
Mr.  Lorimer  as  Senator,  that  it  might  be  done?" 

SENATOR  PENROSE  :  "That  they  could  telephone  me,  see 
me,  or  write  me." 

"I  early  became  impressed  with  Mr.  Hines  as  a  bright, 
active  business  man,  with  a  vast  experience  of  conditions 
all  over  the  country,  and  I  conceived  the  idea  that  his  in- 
terest in  the  transaction  was  entirely  for  the  good  of  the 
government  and  of  the  general  proposition.  /  never  re- 
ceived the  impression  that  he  had  any  candidate,  or  any 
political  scheme  to  work  out." 

Q.  "There  was  no  secret  about  your  position  on  any  of 
those  questions,  or  as  to  Mr.  Lorimer's  candidacy,  or  your 
desire  to  have  him  elected  ?" 

SENATOR  PENROSE  :  "Not  at  all." 

(1801)  (1802)  "I  will  say  for  Mr.  Hines,  that  I  think 
that  from  the  suggestions  made  to  him  by  me  and  others 
he  acquired  a  bona  fide  and  disinterested  wish  to  have  this 
vacancy  filled  for  the  good  of  the  Republican  party  and  of 
the  government." 

Senator  Penrose  speaks  the  exact  truth  when  he  declared  that 
the  slight  interest  I  took  in  the  matter  was  inspired  by  himself, 
Senator  Aldrich  and  others  who  suggested  that  I  might  be 
instrumental  in  breaking  the  deadlock  and  filling  the  vacancy 
with  any  good  Republican. 

TESTIMONY  OF  SENATOR  ALDRICH 

Senator  Aldrich  confirmed  this  truth  absolutely  in  his  testi- 
mony before  the  Dillingham  Committee.  The  Funk  prosecu- 

24 


EDWARD   MINES  TO   THE   U.    L.   CLUB 

tion  harped  constantly  on  the  fact  that  there  were  slight 
variations  between  the  recollections  of  Senator  Aldrich  and 
myself  concerning  the  exact  attitude  of  President  Taft,  but  no 
fair  man  can  read  his  testimony  without  knowing  that  I  was 
authorized  to  undertake  a  perfectly  legitimate  mission,  and  that 
I  executed  it  to  the  best  of  my  ability.  Here  is  a  condensation 
of  the  salient  points  in  the  testimony  of  Senator  Aldrich : 

(1684)  I  had  three  or  four  conversations  with  Mr. 
Hines,  with  reference  to  the  President's  attitude  more  espe- 
cially. The  first  conversation,  I  think,  was  early  in  April. 
He  asked  me  what  the  attitude  of  the  President  was  with 
reference  to  the  senatorial  election.  I  stated  that  the 
President  was  desirous  that  a  Republican  Senator  should 
be  elected  in  Illinois.  (1649)  Mr.  Hines  said  there  was  an 
effort  made  to  agree  on  Mr.  Boutell,  and  asked  if  I  would 
learn  the  President's  attitude  in  regard  to  him.  I  reported 
to  Mr.  Hines  afterwards  that  the  President  would  be 
agreeable  to  Mr.  Boutell's  election.  About  the  2oth  or 
2ist  or  22d  of  May,  Mr.  Hines  said  it  was  impossible  to 
agree  upon  Mr.  Boutell;  that  there  was  a  prospect  of 
agreeing  upon  Mr.  Lorimer,  and  was  anxious  I  should  find 
out  the  attitude  of  the  Administration  towards  his  election. 
I  saw  Mr.  Hines  again  and  told  him  Mr.  Lorimer's  candi- 
dacy would  not  be  objectionable  to  the  President.  Then 
Mr.  Hines  asked  if  I  was  willing  to  say  that  (1650)  to 
any  one  he  might  suggest  to  inquire  of  me  upon  the  sub- 
ject, and  I  said  that  I  was.  The  last  part  of  this  conversa- 
tion was  at  my  house.  Mr.  Hines  said  he  was  to  leave 
for  Chicago  that  day  or  the  next,  and  it  was  important  that 
he  should  know  the  President's  precise  attitude  with  refer- 
ence to  the  subject.  I  told  him  that  I  was  greatly  inter- 
ested in  the  election  of  a  Republican  in  Illinois.  (1651)  I 
told  him  that  the  President's  attitude  was  as  I  have  stated, 
and  if  he  needed  any  confirmation  of  that  he  could  refer 
any  one  to  me.  I  was  satisfied  with  Mr.  Lorimer  as  a 
Republican,  and  I  believed  the  President  was.  (1653)  I 
think  in  our  conversation  Governor  Deneen's  name  was 
mentioned  by  Mr.  Hines,  not  by  me.  My  recollection  is 
that  Deneen  was  an  important  party  to  this  arrangement 
upon  a  candidate,  and  his  attitude  would  be  more  or  less 
influenced  by  knowing  whether  it  would  be  agreeable  to 
the  President.  (1654)  That  is  the  impression  I  got  as  to 

25 


EDWARD   HINES  TO  THE   U.    L.   CLUB 

his  statement.  (1661)  Mr.  Hines  told  me  he  was  going  to 
Chicago,  and  my  understanding  was  he  wanted  this  infor- 
mation as  to  the  attitude  regarding  Mr.  Lorimer  before  he 
went,  and  I  understood  that  he  was  to  use  the  fact  that 
there  was  no  objection  on  the  part  of  the  President  to 
Mr.  Lorimer's  candidacy.  /  said  (1662)  he  was  author- 
ised to  use  it,  and  if  anybody  questioned  it,  that  they  be 
referred  to  me,  and  I  would  confirm  it.  (1665)  I  assumed 
that  Mr.  Hines  was  going  to  Chicago  or  Springfield,  as  he 
said  that  he  was  going,  and  I  knew  that  he  was  going  to 
say  to  certain  people  in  the  Legislature,  or  people  in  Illi- 
nois, that  Mr.  Lorimer's  election  would  not  be  objection- 
able to  the  President.  There  was  no  restriction  upon  the 
use  of  that  information  by  Mr.  Hines  that  would  exclude 
him  from  saying  that  to  Governor  Deneen,  certainly  not. 

Such  is  the  sworn  testimony  of  Senators  Aldrich  and 
Pen  rose,  then  the  admitted  leaders  and  spokesmen  of  the 
Republican  Administration.  But  my  defense  and  justification 
does  not  rest  solely  on  their  high  prestige  nor  on  the  strict 
accuracy  of  their  recollections  of  these  conferences. 

SOME  CONVINCING  TELEGRAMS 

You  should  know  and  keep  in  mind  that  /  did  not  see  Mr. 
Lorimer  from  the  time  he  decided  to  become  a  candidate  until 
after  he  had  been  elected  Senator  by  the  Legislature  of  Illinois. 
My  only  communication  with  him  was  by  long  distance  tele- 
phone or  by  the  sending  of  telegrams.  I  presented  to  the 
Dillingham  Committee  the  original  copies  of  all  these  tele- 
grams, and  the  official  records  of  the  time  and  duration  of  the 
telephone  communications,  and  certified  copies  of  these  were 
presented  to  your  Board  in  the  recent  hearings.  Here  is 
the  telegram  which  confirms  the  fact  that  Senator  Aldrich 
had  authorized  me  to  urge  the  candidacy  of  William  Lorimer : 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  May  25,  1909. 
William  Lorimer,  St.  Nicholas  Hotel,  Springfield,  111. 

Aldrich  authorizes  Governor  calling  him  up  telephone 
confirm  my  message  conference  last  night.  Governor  re- 
quested co-operate  bring  about  result.  Can  bring  message 
tomorrow.  EDWARD  HINES. 

26 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE  U.   L.   CLUB 

And  I  sent  another  telegram  the  same  day  as  follows : 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  May  25,  1909. 
William  Lorimer,  St.  Nicholas  Hotel,  Springfield,  111. 

Leaving  for  Chicago  today.  Can  go  direct  to  Spring- 
field. Bring  message  confirming  conference  held  last 
night,  showing  highest  authorities  want  you  elected  before 
Legislature  adjourns.  Important  Republican  party  have 
strong,  experienced  man,  friendly  to  powers  that  be,  elected 
immediately.  Needed  here  now.  Telegraph  answer  quick, 
duplicate,  care  limited  train,  Harrisburg  depot. 

(Rec.  147-8.)  EDWARD  HINES. 

I  did  not  receive  a  direct  reply  to  that  telegram  from  Mr. 
Lorimer.  On  my  arrival  in  Chicago  at  8:55  on  the  morning 
of  May  26,  1909 — the  day  William  Lorimer  was  elected  Sen- 
ator— I  was  met  at  the  railway  station  by  C.  F.  Wiehe,  my 
brother-in-law  and  business  associate,  and  informed  by  him 
that  Mr.  Lorimer  had  telephoned  from  Springfield  the  evening 
before  stating  that  it  would  not  be  necessary  for  me  to  come 
to  Springfield  and  asking  me  to  communicate  with  him  by 
telephone  immediately  on  my  arrival. 

This  changed  my  plans.  I  had  intended  to  make  a  quick 
connection  and  go  on  to  Springfield  and  deliver  my  message 
to  Governor  Deneen  and  others  whom  I  thought  would  be 
influenced  by  the  views  of  the  national  Republican  leaders  in 
Washington.  I  deferred  to  the  judgment  of  Mr.  Lorimer,  went 
directly  to  the  offices  of  the  Continental  National  Bank,  imme- 
diately put  in  a  long-distance  telephone  call  for  Congressman 
Lorimer,  and,  while  waiting  for  the  connection,  sent  the 
following  telegram: 

CONTINENTAL  NATIONAL  BANK, 

CHICAGO,  May  26,  1909. 
William  Lorimer,  Esq.,  Springfield,  111. 

Just  arrived.  Trying  to  get  you  telephone.  Aldrich, 
Penrose  and  higher  authority — as  telephoned  you  from 
Washington — want  you  elected.  Authorized  have  gov- 
ernor (and}  others  call  Washington  (to)  confirm  this. 
(7)  can  be  there  tonight.  EDWARD  HINES. 

The  words  inserted  in  italics  give  the  unmistakable  purport 
of  this  telegram. 

27 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 
IMPORTANT  TESTIMONY  OF  BANKER  REYNOLDS 

Prior  to  the  sending  of  this  telegram  I  had  discussed  the 
purport  of  my  political  mission  with  Mr.  George  M.  Reynolds, 
then  President  of  the  Continental  National  Bank,  and  now 
President  of  the  Continental  &  Commercial  National  Bank  of 
Chicago.  My  judges  in  the  Union  League  Club  trial  did  not 
call  on  Mr.  Reynolds  for  his  testimony  affirming  the  details 
and  legitimacy  of  my  mission,  but  it  appears  in  the  official 
records  of  the  Dillingham  Committee,  and  my  attorney  was 
permitted  to  read  portions  of  it  to  your  Board.  I  ask  you  to 
read  the  following  extract  from  it,  and  to  decide  for  yourself 
what  motive  then  influenced  me: 

MR.  REYNOLDS.  Mr.  Hines  came  to  me  that  morning, 
as  I  think,  directly  from  the  train,  and  said  he  was  the 
bearer  of  a  message  which  would  have  an  important  bear- 
ing upon  the  situation  in  Illinois  politics. 

MR.  HANECY.    Did  he  say  from  whom  the  massage  was  ? 

MR.  REYNOLDS.  Yes,  he  did.  The  message  came  directly 
as  he  stated  to  me,  from  Senator  Aldrich.  In  the  same 
conversation,  however,  he  explained  that  the  message  in 
reality  was  coming  from  the  administration,  or  from  Presi- 
dent Taft,  through  Senator  Aldrich,  and  was  to  be  deliv- 
ered by  him  to  Gov.  Deneen. 

MR.  HANECY.  What  else  did  he  say  to  you  in  that 
respect  ? 

MR.  REYNOLDS.  He  told  me  in  substance  that  there  had 
been  a  conference  of  some  of  the  leading  Senators  in 
Washington  upon  the  question  of  the  election  of  a  Senator 
in  Illinois,  there  having  been  one  vacancy  at  that  time; 
and  he  stated  that  as  a  result  of  that  conference  he  had 
been  commissioned  to  take  this  message  to  Illinois,  which, 
in  effect,  was  that  the  leaders  in  the  Senate,  including  the 
President,  had  expressed  a  desire  to  have  a  Senator  elected 
before  the  adjournment  of  the  Legislature  in  Illinois,  and 
that  after  a  consideration  of  the  situation  locally  they  had 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  they  could  probably  unite  better 
upon  Senator  Lorimer  (or,  rather,  upon  Congressman 
Lorimer  at  that  time)  than  upon  anyone  else;  and 
he  stated  to  me  that  he  had  been  commissioned  to 
carry  this  message  to  Governor  Deneen,  to  the  effect  that 

28 


EDWARD   HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

they  would  much  prefer  to  see  Senator  Lorimer  elected 
than  to  have  the  Legislature  adjourn  without  an  election. 

MR.  HANECY.  Did  Mr.  Hines  say  anything  to  you  about 
how  he  was  to  communicate  that  to  Governor  Deneen,  or 
how  he  wanted  to  convey  that  message  to  Governor  Deneen 
from  the  President  and  the  leaders  in  Washington? 

MR.  REYNOLDS.  I  do  not  think  there  was  any  specific 
discussion  about  that.  He  intimated,  or  rather  indicated, 
that  he  had  expected  to  go  on  to  Springfield  direct,  but  for 
some  reason  or  other  had  been  detained  in  Chicago,  and 
that  it  would  necessitate  the  message  being  sent  by  tele- 
phone. He  said  he  did  not  know  quite  what  was  the  best 
way  to  do  it,  and  asked  my  advice.  I  said  to  him  that  he 
being  the  only  party  who  could  know  anything  about  the 
details  of  the  message  itself,  I  thought  he  was  the  only  man 
who  could  consistently  undertake  to  do  the  telephoning. 
Thereupon  he  asked  me  if  we  had  a  public  telephone  there, 
and  I  told  him  there  was  a  telephone  in  the  room  adjoining 
mine  which  he  could  use.  *  *  *  Mr.  Hines  left  my 
office  then  and  went  into  the  adjoining  room  and  was  in 
the  booth  for  some  little  time,  I  do  not  know  how  long. 
In  the  meantime  people  had  begun  to  come  in  to  transact 
their  business;  and  after  some  time  he  came  back  to  my 
office  and  said  that  he  had  talked  to  Mr.  Lorimer  and  had 
also  talked  to  Governor  Deneen. 

MR.  HANECY.  Was  there  anything  said  by  you  or  Mr. 
Hines  about  the  possibility  of  Governor  Deneen  not  recog- 
nizing Mr.  Hines'  voice,  either  before  Mr.  Hines  got  the 
Governor  or  afterwards  ? 

MR.  REYNOLDS.  I  think  Mr.  Hines  intimated  before  he 
went  into  the  booth  that  in  his  proposed  talk  with  Gov- 
ernor Deneen  he  might  not  recognize  his  voice,  and  he 
said:  "I  may  have  to  bother  you  further  to  step  to  the 
phone  and  identify  me." 

MR.  HANECY.    But  he  did  not  call  on  you  ? 

MR.  REYNOLDS.    He  did  not;  no,  sir 

As  President  Reynolds  says,  I  talked  from  the  Bank  with 
Congressman  Lorimer  and  Governor  Deneen,  and  related  to 
him  the  purport  of  both  conversations.  Congressman  Lorimer 
urged  me  to  call  Governor  Deneen  on  the  telephone  and  convey 
my  message  from  Washington.  I  did  so.  The  contemporary 
telegrams  and  other  evidence  show  fully  the  character  of  my 

29 


EDWARD   MINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

mission  from  Washington.  The  testimony  of  Senators  Aldrich 
and  Penrose,  of  George  M.  Reynolds  and  others  of  high 
standing  confirms  this  so  fully  that  no  fair  man  can  doubt  my 
motives  or  criticize  my  acts. 

I  desired  Congressman  Lorimer  to  know  that  I  had  delivered 
my  message  to  Governor  Deneen.  I  therefore  sent  the  follow- 
ing telegram  from  the  Bank : 

CHICAGO,  May  26,  1909. 
William  Lorimer,  Esq.,  Springfield,  111. 

Talked  with  Deneen  over  telephone ;  says  not  necessary 
my  coming  down;  understands  subject  fully;  glad  I  called 
him  telephone ;  consider  confidential. 

(Charge  Edward  Hines.)  CHICAGO  PARTY. 

This  and  the  other  telegrams  quoted  were  submitted  to 
your  Board  of  Directors.  I  accounted  to  them  for  practically 
every  moment  of  my  time  from  the  late  night  conference  in 
Washington  with  Senator  Aldrich  up  to  the  hour  when  Senator 
Lorimer  was  elected — at  which  hour  I  was  in  the  Union  League 
Club,  a  fact  not  disputed  by  the  prosecution.  I  submitted 
documentary  evidence  in  proof  of  my  every  movement,  and 
established  my  motives  by  the  testimony  of  men  whose  veracity 
none  dare  call  in  question. 

THE  WIRT  H.  COOK  EPISODE 

While  in  the  Bank  I  had  been  notified  that  Wirt  H.  Cook 
and  William  O'Brien  were  at  the  Grand  Pacific  Hotel,  that  they 
were  anxious  to  leave  the  city  on  an  early  train,  and  that  they 
desired  to  see  me  on  a  matter  of  considerable  business  import- 
ance. I  was  aware  that  the  matter  was  of  consequence,  but 
I  wished  first  to  talk  with  Mr.  Lorimer  and  again  to  urge  him 
to  take  full  advantage  of  the  message  I  had  conveyed  to 
Governor  Deneen.  My  office  again  notified  me  that  Mr.  Cook 
and  Mr.  O'Brien  were  waiting,  for  me.  I  decided  to  meet 
them  at  the  Grand  Pacific  at  once,  and  instructed  Miss  Frances 
Carroll,  our  chief  telephone  operator,  that  I  was  going  to  the 
Grand  Pacific  at  once,  and  to  make  connection  with  Mr.  Cook's 
room  when  Congressman  Lorimer  responded  to  my  call. 

36 


EDWARD   HIKES  TO   THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

The  very  fact  that  I  made  such  an  arrangement  should  be 
conclusive  proof  that  my  intended  talk  with  Mr.  Lorimer  was 
on  a  legitimate  subject.  The  business  conference  between 
Messrs.  Cook,  O'Brien,  Wiehe,  Baker  and  myself  was  in 
progress  when  the  telephone  bell  rang.  Mr.  Cook  responded 
and  informed  me  that  I  was  called. 

Bear  in  mind  that  this  was  the  forenoon  of  the  day  that 
Senator  Lorimer  was  elected.  Bear  in  mind  that  I  had  pre- 
viously talked  by  telephone  to  Springfield  with  Governor 
Deneen  and  Congressman  Lorimer.  Bear  in  mind  that  Mr. 
George  M.  Reynolds  was  fully  aware  of  the  purport  of  these 
conversations,  and  that  this  purport  is  confirmed  by  telegrams. 

I  first  recognized  the  voice  of  Miss  Carroll.  She  said : 
"Here  is  Congressman  Lorimer,  in  Springfield."  I  said: 
"Hello!  Congressman!  I  have  just  talked  with  Governor 
Deneen  and  he  said  he  would  see  you  immediately."  Mr. 
Lorimer  replied :  "He  has  already  seen  me."  I  said :  "Now,  if 
I  can  do  any  good  I  will  come  down  on  the  afternoon  train." 
He  replied  and  told  me  not  to  come  to  Springfield  until  he 
telephoned  me.  He  said:  "If  my  name  goes  before  the 
Legislature  today  you  could  not  assist  in  any  way  by  trying 
to  come  down  here.  If  you  can  assist  tomorrow,  I  will  let 
you  know  late  in  the  afternoon  by  telephone."  I  then  urged 
him  to  make  every  effort  to  take  full  advantage  of  the  fact 
that  the  Washington  Administration  was  with  him,  and  proba- 
bly mentioned  the  name  of  Governor  Deneen  several  times 
in  that  conversation. 

MAGNIFYING  A  PETTY  INCIDENT 

More  than  a  year  passed  when  I  learned  that  Cook  was 
relating  a  pretended  version  of  my  talk  to  Springfield  over 
the  telephone  in  his  room  in  the  Grand  Pacific  Hotel.  The  so- 
called  "White  Confession"  had,  in  the  meantime,  been  made 
and  there  was  a  reaching  out  in  every  direction  to  get  hold  of 
anything  which  might  throw  light  on  the  election  of  Senator 
Lorimer.  I  had  nothing  to  fear  personally  from  the  part  I  had 
taken  in  that  election,  but  I  disliked  to  be  called  before  a  grand 

31 


EDWARD   HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

jury  and  forced  to  make  public  the  fact  that  I  had  been  the 
bearer  of  a  message  from  Washington  to  Springfield,  which 
I  regarded  in  the  nature  of  a  confidential  service. 

The  preposterous  and  admittedly  false  statements  made 
by  Cook  need  not  be  discussed  here.  They  were  not  entertained 
before  your  Board  of  Directors,  but  I  was  charged  with  mis- 
conduct because  I  admitted  before  the  Dillingham  Committee 
that  I  had  asked  Mr.  ^Viehe,  one  night  in  the  early  summer 
of  1910,  to  go  to  the  Grand  Pacific  Hotel  and  to  ask  Cook  and 
O'Brien  to  cease  their  promiscuous  talk  about  the  conversation 
they  had  overheard  in  Cook's  room  in  the  hotel  that  forenoon 
of  May  26,  1909.  I  did  not  know  then  what  Cook  was  claim- 
ing, but  I  did  know  that  I  had  conducted  in  his  presence  a 
telephone  conversation  in  which  party  leaders  were  mentioned, 
and  I  did  what  I  could  to  prevent  Cook  from  dragging  the 
names  of  Governor  Deneen,  Senator  Aldrich  and  others  into  a 
partisan  inquisition. 

Certain  members  of  your  Board  made  a  studied  attempt  to 
magnify  this  petty  incident  into  a  crime,  but  abandoned  the 
effort  when  we  asked  that  Cook  be  produced  as  a  witness  and 
subjected  to  cross-examination.  Cook  was  such  an  effective 
witness  against  himself  before  the  Dillingham  Committee  as 
to  render  it  unnecessary  to  discuss  any  incident  with  which  he 
was  identified. 

The  facts  thus  far  enumerated  constitute  my  entire  con- 
nection with  the  election  of  Senator  Lorimer,  and  were  pre- 
sented and  proved  by  unanswerable  documentary  evidence 
before  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Union  League  Club.  In 
a  paragraph,  my  connection  was  as  follows: 

As  a  Republican  I  desired  to  see  the  Springfield  deadlock 
broken  by  the  selection  of  a  Senator  acceptable  to  the  Admin- 
istration. The  Republican  leaders  in  Washington  honored  me 
with  their  confidence  and  authorized  me  to  carry  to  Springfield 
a  message  to  the  effect  that  Mr.  Lorimer  was  acceptable  as 
a  candidate.  I  delivered  this  message  by  wire  and  by  telephone 
from  Chicago  on  the  forenoon  of  the  day  that  Mr.  Lorimer 
was  elected,  and  that  was  the  only  part  I  played  in  securing 

32 


EDWARD  H1NES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

that  result.  In  proof  of  the  truth  of  these  statements  is  the 
sworn  word  of  such  men  as  Senators  Aldrich  and  Penrose, 
Governor  Deneen,  George  M.  Reynolds  and  a  host  of  others. 

FUNK  AND  HIS  TALK  TO  ME  AT  THE  UNION  LEAGUE  CLUB 

Funk  was  the  general  manager  of  and  stockholder  in  the 
corporation  known  as  The  International  Harvester  Company. 
Long  before  the  Senatorial  election  that  company  wished  to 
close  up  one  branch  of  the  Chicago  River.  In  this  it  was 
opposed  by  numbers  of  property  owners  whose  interests  would 
be  affected  because  of  their  business  along  that  river.  Mr. 
Lorimer,  then  Congressman,  was  opposed  to  the  aims  of  the 
Harvester  Company,  and  took  the  side  of  those  who  wished 
to  keep  the  river  open.  This,  of  course,  did  not  make  that 
company,  or  its  general  manager,  favorable  to  Mr.  Lorimer's 
election  as  Senator,  as  in  the  latter  position  he  would  have 
still  greater  influence. 

The  fact  that  the  Harvester  company  did  not  want  Lorimer 
to  be  Senator  was  afterwards  admitted  by  Funk  when  testify- 
ing before  the  Dillingham  Committee,  where  he  said  that  Mr. 
Lorimer  would  be  more  of  an  important  factor  regarding  the 
opening  or  the  closing  of  the  river  if  he  became  Senator  than 
as  a  member  of  the  lower  house ;  and  before  the  Union  League 
Club  he  said:  "We  were  not  particularly  pleased  with  the 
result  of  the  election."  Of  course  when  Mr.  Lorimer  was 
elected  Senator  "they"  naturally  felt  that  it  was  to  their  interest 
to  make  it  appear  that  they  were  frietidly  to  him,  and  no  doubt 
Funk  was  quite  anxious  to  place  himself  on  good  terms  with 
the  new  Senator  from  Illinois. 

The  day  after  the  election,  I  went  to  the  Union  League  Club 
with  Mr.  Baker  and  Mr.  Hall,  two  business  associates,  to  meet 
Mr.  Carney,  a  lumberman  from  the  Northwest,  who  had  come 
to  Chicago  to  discuss  a  lumber  deal  of  considerable  importance, 
and  who  was  registered  on  that  day  at  the  Auditorium  Hotel 
in  this  city.  Mr.  Baker  was  our  general  buyer  and  Mr.  Charles 
Hall  was  our  Canadian  buyer.  An  appointment  had  previously 
been  made  for  us  to  meet  at  one  o'clock  at  the  Union  League 

33 


EDWARD  MINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

Club  to  discuss  this  business  matter.  When  Mr.  Baker,  Mr. 
Hall  and  myself  reached  the  Union  League  Club,  we  found 
Mr.  Carney  already  there  sitting  on  the  long  sofa  in  the  north- 
west corner  of  the  lounging  room.  We  immediately  began 
to  discuss  the  business  matter  that  brought  us  together,  and 
while  we  were  talking  Mr.  Funk  interrupted  us.  Concerning 
this  interruption  I  testified  before  the  Board  as  follows: 
(Rec.  68.) 

"I  looked  up  and  saw  Mr.  Funk  approaching  the  couch, 
I  should  judge  about  seven  or  eight  feet  from  where  I  was 
sitting,  and  as  he  came  up  towards  me  he  smiled  in  a  rec- 
ognizing way,  and  having  got  within  about  five  or  six 
feet,  I  arose.  He  extended  his  hand  and  greeted  me,  and 
I  took  his  hand  and  greeted  him  likewise.  He  opened  up 
the  conversation  by  stating  that  he  was  very  glad  indeed 
to  hear  that  Mr.  Lorimer  had  been  elected  Senator.  I 
replied,  stating  that  I  was  glad  it  pleased  him ;  that  I  felt 
the  Senator  would  prove  a  good  man  for  the  business  in- 
terests. The  next  thing  he  stated  was:  'I  have  never 
had  the  pleasure  of  meeting  the  Senator,  and  I  would  like 
very  much  indeed  to  have  you  arrange  to  introduce  me  to 
him.'  I  said  it  would  afford  me  pleasure  to  do  so.  With 
that  he  walked  south  about  six  or  seven  feet  towards  the 
entrance  as  you  go  down  the  stairs  towards  Jackson  boule- 
vard. In  a  sort  of  familiar  way  he  had  me  by  the  arm  as 
we  walked  along,  and  just  as  we  got  to  the  end  of  the 
entrance  or  sort  of  a  post  there,  he  said  to  me :  'I  suppose 
the  Senator  was  put  to  more  or  less  expense  in  his  cam- 
paign, and  it  is  hardly  right  that  he  should  stand  that,  and 
the  business  interests  ought  to  take  that  off  his  shoulders, 
and  we  would  like  to  do  our  share.'  I  replied  and  said  that 
I  did  not  know  anything  about  the  matter,  but  I  was  going 
to  see  the  Senator  as  soon  as  he  returned  from  Springfield, 
and  would  let  Mr.  Funk  know.  I  don't  think  I  was  away 
from  these  gentlemen  over  probably  a  minute  or  two  min- 
uts.  I  returned  right  to  my  seat.  As  I  went  and  sat  down, 
as  a  sort  of  apology  or  excuse  for  getting  up,  I  said  to 
Mr.  Carney — as  I  recollect  I  said:  'That  is  Mr.  Funk, 
the  general  manager  of  the  International  Harvester  Com- 
pany.' I  said :  'He  is  a  small  man  physically  for  a  large 
position' — something  of  that  sort,  a  complimentary  re- 
mark at  the  time.  We  continued  our  conversation  for 

34 


EDWARD   HIKES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

fifteen  or  probably  twenty  minutes  and  then  adjourned, 
and  as  I  recollect  it  we  went  out  of  the  Club  house,  and  at 
the  foot  of  the  stairs  Mr.  Carney  left  us.  I  went  over  to 
the  Continental  National  Bank  on  some  business  that  day. 
Mr.  Baker  said  he  was  going  home ;  he  had  not  been  home 
for  some  time ;  and  our  party  dispersed." 

SOME  UNIMPEACHABLE  TESTIMONY 

Fred  Carney,  Jr.,  Charles  L.  Hall  and  Isaac  Baker  gave  their 
testimony  before  the  Dillingham  Committee.  That  testimony 
stood  unimpeached  after  the  prosecution  had  subjected  them  to 
a  most  rigid  cross-examination.  It  was  recognized  that  the 
tale  told  by  Funk  would  fall  unless  doubt  could  be  cast  on  the 
testimony  given  by  Carney,  Hall  and  Baker,  but  no  fair  man 
who  heard  them  before  the  Dillingham  Committee  or  before 
the  Union  League  Club  could  doubt  that  they  told  the  truth. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  select  three  men  better  fitted  to  typify 
the  straightforward,  modern  American  business  man.  For 
years  these  three  men  have  been  the  active  participants  in  great 
business  transactions.  Their  responsibility  has  been  great,  the 
field  of  their  operations  has  extended  over  a  continent,  they 
have  come  in  contact  with  thousands  of  men,  all  of  whom 
would,  if  necessary,  testify  to  the  high  character  and  manliness 
of  Fred  Carney,  Charles  L.  Hall  and  Isaac  Baker. 

The  following  extracts  give  the  essence  of  the  testimony  of 
Fred  Carney,  Jr.,  before  my  judges  in  the  Union  League  Club. 

Mr.  Carney  said: 

I  was  to  meet  Mr.  Hines  at  the  Club  at  one  o'clock.  I 
went  in  and  sat  down  on  the  lounge  and  waited  till  Mr. 
Hines  came.  With  him  were  Mr.  Baker  and  Mr.  Hall, 
and  we  talked  about  our  business.  While  sitting  there 
talking  a  gentleman  came,  apparently  from  across  the  room 
to  where  we  sat,  and  when  he  got  within  ten  or  fifteen  feet 
of  us  I  noticed  a  smile  on  his  face,  and  Mr.  Hines  got  up 
and  stood  three  or  four  feet  away  and  shook  hands  with 
him.  They  stood  there  talking  a  minute  or  two  and  walked 
away,  and  were  gone  two  or  three  minutes.  When  Mr. 
Hines  came  back  he  said,  "That  is  not  a  very  heavy  fel- 
low for  a  man  holding  down  a  big  job,  is  it?"  I  said,  "No, 

35 


EDWARD  MINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

sir.  Who  is  he?"  He  said,  "That  is  Mr.  Funk,  general 
manager  of  the  International  Harvester  Company.  He  was 
just  congratulating  me  on  Lorimer's  election."  They  went 
to  where  the  arch  is,  toward  the  entrance.  This  was  the 
27th  of  May,  1909.  The  lounge  is  on  the  left  as  you 
come  into  the  entrance.  Four  of  us  were  sitting  on  the 
lounge. 

Mr.  Hall  next  testified : 

I  sat  on  the  sofa  with  Messrs.  Hines,  Carney  and  Baker, 
discussing  a  lumber  deal.  It  was  interrupted  by  a  gentle- 
man coming  up  and  speaking  to  Mr.  Hines,  saying  to  him : 
"How  do  you  do,  sir?"  Mr.  Hines  got  up  and  shook  hands 
with  him.  They  stood  talking  in  front  of  us  perhaps  a 
minute  or  less,  and  the  gentleman  said  to  Mr.  Hines:  "I 
am  glad  Mr.  Lorimer  has  been  elected  Senator."  Mr. 
Hines  said  he  was  glad,  and  the  other  gentleman  says: 
"I  wish  you  would  introduce  me  to  Mr.  Lorimer  at  your 
first  opportunity ;  I  never  met  the  Senator."  At  that  they 
walked  away  towards  the  door  and  stepped  over  towards 
the  archway.  I  came  to  the  Club  with  Mr.  Hines  and  Mr. 
Baker,  and  Mr.  Carney  was  there  waiting  for  us.  When 
Mr.  Hines  returned  from  talking  with  this  gentleman  he 
said:  "That  is  Mr.  Funk,  general  manager  of  the  Inter- 
national Harvester  Company.  He  is  a  small  man  phys- 
ically (or  words  to  that  effect)  for  such  a  big  job  or 
position." 

Mr.  Baker  said : 

I  was  in  the  Club  house  on  the  27th  of  May,  1909.  Went 
there  with  Messrs.  Hines  and  Hall,  and  found  Mr.  Carney 
there.  We  sat  on  the  lounge  on  the  left  as  you  come  in, 
and  were  talking  about  buying  lumber  from  Mr.  Carney. 
A  gentleman  came  up  and  spoke  to  Mr.  Hines,  who  got 
up  and  shook  hands,  and  the  gentleman  says  to  Mr.  Hines : 
"I  see  that  Lorimer  has  been  elected  Senator."  Mr.  Hines 
replied:  "Yes;  I  think  he  will  make  a  good  representa- 
tive" ;  and  I  understood  Mr.  Funk  to  say  he  had  never  met 
the  Senator  and  would  like  to  be  introduced  to  him.  Then 
they  walked  off  towards  the  exit.  In  a  couple  of  minutes 
Mr.  Hines  came  back  and  made  the  remark  to  Mr.  Carney 
that  there  was  a  small  man  for  a  large  position,  or  a  large 
position  for  a  small  man,  and  that  he  was  the  general  man- 
ager of  the  International  Harvester  Company,  and  re- 

36 


EDWARD   MINES  TO   THE   U.    L.   CLUB 

marked  about  Mr.  Funk  being  pleased  because  Mr.  Lori- 
mer  was  elected.    There  was  some  remark  about  that. 

It  is  seen  from  the  foregoing  testimony  that  Funk  came  over 
to  me  where  I  was  sitting  on  the  lounge  with  these  gentlemen, 
and  that  as  I  noticed  him  approaching  with  the  evident  purpose 
of  greeting  me,  I  arose  and  shook  hands  with  him,  and  that  we 
remained  standing  during  our  brief  conversation  at  that  place. 
Funk  did  not  sit  down  on  the  lounge  at  any  time. 

FUNK'S  CLAIMS 

Notwithstanding  the  foregoing  facts,  thus  fully  established 
by  competent  evidence,  Funk  gives  an  entirely  different  version 
of  the  affair,  but  he  has  never  related  even  the  substance  of  the 
conversation  in  the  same  way  to  the  various  bodies  before  which 
he  has  appeared  and  testified.  Before  the  Board  of  this  Club 
he  was  asked  to  give  his  version  of  the  conversation,  and  told 
it  thus : 

"I  was  standing  in  the  lounging  room  one  day,  right 
after  lunch,  probably  about  two  o'clock,  and  Mr.  Hines 
approached  me  and  shook  hands  with  me  cordially,  remark- 
ing that  I  was  just  the  fellow  he  wanted  to  see,  and  that 
he  had  been  looking  for.  He  said  he  wanted  to  talk  to  me 
a  moment.  We  then  sat  down  on  the  large  couch  on  the 
west  wall,  and  he  seemed  to  be  feeling  quite  exhilarated, 
and  without  any  preliminaries  he  said :  'Well,  we  put  Lori- 
mer  over  down  at  Springfield.  It  cost  $100,000  to  do  it, 
and  now  we  are  seeing  some  of  our  friends  to  get  it  fixed 
up.'  I  did  not  do  much  of  the  talking;  I  let  him  talk. 
He  seemed  to  want  to  talk  and  I  listened.  He  went  on  to 
say  that  there  were  only  a  few  what  he  termed  'large  peo- 
ple' or  'big  people'  he  cared  to  go  to ;  that  he  thought  about 
ten  of  the  big  people,  if  they  would  put  up  $10,000  apiece, 
that  would  clean  the  thing  up.  I  asked  him  why  he  came 
to  us.  I  used  the  expression  'us,'  meaning  my  company. 
And  he  said:  'Because  you  are  as  interested  as  any  of 
us  in  having  the  right  kind  of  a  man  at  Washington.'  I 
told  him  that  I  would  not  have  anything  to  do  with  it. 
He  undertook  to  argue  the  matter,  and  I  got  up  and  left 
him  just  that  moment."  (Rec.  19.) 

In  the  giving  of  his  latest  version  as  above  quoted  he  omitted 

37 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE  U.   L.   CLUB 

several  features  that  he  had  incorporated  in  his  testimony  before 
the  Helm  and  Dillingham  Committees,  which  omissions  are 
rather  significant.  Before  the  Helm  Committee  Funk's  version 
of  this  same  matter  was : 

"  'Well,  we  put  Lorimer  over  down  at  Springfield,  but 
it  cost  us  about  $100,000  to  do  it.'  Then  he  went  on  to 
say  that  they  had  to  act  quickly  when  the  time  came ;  that 
they  had  no  chance  to  consult  anyone  beforehand.  I  think 
his  words  were,  'We  had  to  act  quickly  when  the  time 
came,  so  we  put  up  the  money.'  Then  he  said,  'We — now 
we  are  seeing  some  of  our  friends  so  as  to  get  it  fixed 
up.'"  (Helm  Com.) 
Before  the  Dillingham  Committee  he  swore  as  follows : 

"He  said,  'Well,  we  put  Lorimer  over  down  at  Spring- 
field, but  it  cost  us  $100,000  to  do  it,'  or  'About  $100,000.' 
Then  he  went  on  to  explain  that  they  had  to  act  quickly 
when  the  time  came  and  did  not  have  any  time  to  consult 
anybody,  and  he  said,  'So  we  put  up  the  money.  Now  we 
are  seeing  some  of  our  friends  to  get  the  matter  fixed 
up."  (545  Dill  Com.) 

FUNK  CHANGES  HIS  TESTIMONY 

You  will  notice  that  in  relating  the  substance  of  this  brief 
conversation  Funk  omitted  before  the  Board  three  important 
features  that  he  emphasized  before  both  the  Helm  and  the 
Dillingham  Committees.  These  were  that  "We  had  to  act 
quickly  when  the  time  came;"  "We  did  not  have  any  time  to 
consult  anybody ;"  "So  we  put  up  the  money."  The  significance 
of  these  omissions  will  be  developed  later  on,  and  you  will  see 
that  they  were  dropped  by  design,  just  as  he  radically  changed 
(as  you  will  see)  the  time  of  an  alleged  "second  talk"  after  the 
introduction  of  my  evidence  in  Washington.  The  omission  of 
these  matters  was  noticed  at  his  secret  hearing  before  the 
Board,  and  he  was  given  an  opportunity  to  supply  them  by 
questions  that  were  specifically  put  to  him  by  a  member  of  the 
Board  for  that  purpose,  as  follows : 

Q.  You  gave  this  same  testimony  several  times  under 
oath,  have  you  ?  A.  I  have  twice. 

38 


EDWARD   HIKES  TO  THE   U.   L.  CLUB 

Q.  Twice;  when?  A.  Before  the  committee  at  Spring- 
field, Illinois,  and  before  the  Lorimer  Investigation  at 
Washington. 

Q.  Have  you  had  any  occasion  to  change  anything 
which  you  have  stated  under  oath  at  those  investigations 
in  which  you  have  made  statements  under  oath  ?  A.  No. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  him  that  you 
have  not  related  on  that  occasion  anywhere  else,  except  on 
the  couch?  A.  No,  it  all  took  place  right  there  within 
about  two  minutes.  (Rec.  23.) 

Mr.  Funk,  however,  in  the  light  of  the  evidence  as  developed 
at  Washington,  did  not  care  again  to  incorporate  in  his  testi- 
mony these  carefully  omitted  features.  According  to  these 
features  I  was  "down  at  Springfield,"  [which  I  was  not]  quickly 
putting,  up  the  money  in  an  emergency,  with  "no  chance  to 
consult  anyone  beforehand."  And  not  only  that,  but  they 
directly  contradict  the  claim  of  Funk's  friends  and  the  partisan 
newspapers  that  Senator  Lorimer  had  produced  the  long  dead- 
lock in  the  Legislature  for  the  very  purpose  of  securing  his  own 
election  and  that  he  and  his  friends  had  been  for  months-  laying 
their  plans  to  effect  this  very  object. 

Before  the  Helm  Committee  he  also  stated  that  after  he  had 
refused  to  contribute  to  this  alleged  fund  "we  had  some  aimless 
discussion  back  and  forth,  and  I  remember  I  asked  him  how 
much  he  was  getting  from  his  different  friends."  (Helm 
Committee.)  Afterwards,  before  the  Dillingham  Committee, 
he  converted  this  "aimless  discussion"  into  an  "argument"  on 
my  part  and  said  that  I  "undertook  to  argue  the  matter." 
When,  however,  he  was  pressed  to  state  what  I  said  in  "argu- 
ing the  matter,"  Mr.  Funk  replied,  "I  cannot  go  into  them  in 
detail.  In  fact,  before  he  got  himself  started  on  the  subject 
I  got  up  and  departed."  No  such  thing  having  occurred,  Funk 
was  unable  on  the  spur  of  the  moment  to  think  of  what  he 
could  put  in  my  mouth  in  the  line  of  argument,  and,  as  he 
repeatedly  did  all  through  his  examination  when  caught  in  a 
hole,  he  simply  "hedged,"  and  told  the  committee  that  before 
I  started  to  argue  he  left.  Neither  logic  nor  consistency  con- 
trols Funk. 

39 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.  CLUB 

Before  the  Board  Funk  testified  concerning  the  alleged  use 
of  Mr.  Tilden's  name  in  the  conversation  as  follows : 

Q.  Mr.  Funk,  did  Mr.  Hines  at  that  time  at  that  meet- 
ing downstairs  say  whom  this  money  was  to  be  paid  to? 
A.  Yes,  he  seemed  to  assume  before  he  got  through  talk- 
ing that  we  were  going  to  send  it,  and  he  said  :  "Just  send 
the  money  to  Ed.  Hines," 

Q.   Who?    A.   I  mean  Ed.  Tilden. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Tilden?  A.  Never  knew  him. 
*  *  *  I  knew  of  him.  (Rec.  21.) 

Before  the  Dillingham  Committee  Funk  testified  as  follows 
about  this  same  matter: 

Q.  How  early  in  the  conversation  did  he  mention  Mr. 
Tilden's  name?  A.  I  think  he  mentioned  it  in  connection 
with  the  contribution  of  $10,000  apiece.  *  *  *  He 
talked  rapidly  and  rather  assumed  that  the  thing  was 
going  to  be  done,  and  he  mentioned  Tilden's  name  before 
I  had  a  chance  to  say  anything.  (546  Dill.  Com.) 

Q.  You  had  not  had  any  opportunity  to  say  anything 
to  him  before  that?  A.  No.  I  let  him  talk.  He  wanted 
to  talk,  and  I  was  willing  to  listen  until  he  got  through. 
(547  Dill  Com.) 

His  testimony  as  above  quoted  was,  as  I  have  already 
shown,  given  at  a  hearing  of  the  Board  at  which  I  was  not 
present.  At  the  next  hearing  of  the  Board  the  testimony  of 
Funk  as  he  had  privately  given  it  was  carefully  read  over 
to  him,  and  he  was  asked  if  he  had  "Any  corrections  to 
make  in  this  statement,  or  anything  to  add  to  it."  And  he 
stated  that  he  had  no  changes  to  make  and  nothing  to  add. 
Later,  however,  he  did  change,  and  you  will  see  how  he 
retracted  and  shifted  his  evidence  from  time  to  time  and  from 
point  to  point  as  he  deemed  the  exigencies  of  the  case 
demanded. 

IS  FUNK'S  CLAIM  BELIEVABLE? 

Fiink's  statement  stands  alone  absolutely  unsupported  by 
corrob  oration.  He  gives  several  versions  of  this  "two  minute 
conversation,"  as  he  described  it,  but  in  all  his  versions  he  has 

40 


EDWARD   HINES  TO   THE    U.    L.   CLUB 

maintained  that  "the  entire  conversation  took  place  upon  the 
couch,"  and  that  we  parted  there  at  the  couch.  This  couch  is 
the  large  one  along  the  northwest  wall  of  the  lounging  room. 
You  are  no  doubt  familiar  with  its  location.  I  have  shown, 
not  merely  by  my  own  testimony,  but  by  the  testimony  of 
Messrs.  Carney,  Baker  and  Hall,  that  we  four  men  were  sitting 
on  that  very  couch  at  the  time  discussing  a  business  deal. 
Funk  does  not  deny  that  these  men  were  on  the  couch  at  that 
time.  He  was  questioned  specifically  about  this  at  the  hearing 
of  the  Board,  as  follows: 

Q.  At  the  time  this  conversation  took  place  in  the  Club, 
did  you  observe  anybody  standing  near  you  or  near  Mr. 
Hines,  or  did  Mr.  Hines  appear  to  have  any  conversation 
with  other  people,  or  did  he  have  other  people  that  ap- 
peared to  be  friends  of  his  ? 

A.   He  might  have,  I  couldn't  say  as  to  that.     *     *     * 

Q.  Were  there  any  other  people  on  that  same  couch, 
sitting  on  the  same  couch  there? 

A.  I  don't  think  there  was.    I  don't  recall.     (Rec.  23). 

This  is  as  positive  and  definite  a  statement  as  Funk  could 
ever  be  induced  to  make  in  my  favor  at  any  of  the  hearings. 
It  was  at  all  times  like  drawing  teeth  to  get  from  him  an 
admission  which  he  recognized  at  the  time  as  being  favorable 
to  me.  And  you  may  rest  assured  when  he  took  refuge  behind 
the  statement :  "I  don't  recall,"  that  he  had  a  distinct  recollec- 
tion Messrs.  Carney,  Hall  and  Baker  were  there.  If  Funk's 
statement  be  true  that  the  entire  conversation  took  place  on 
the  couch,  these  three  men  would  have  heard  the  "entire" 
conversation  as  well  as  myself,  and  would  have  so  testified.  If 
that  were  the  fact,  it  is  manifest  that  it  would  have  been  a 
distinct  advantage  to  me,  because  I  would  have  had  corrobora- 
tion  of  everything  that  was  said  between  Funk  and  myself. 

Funk  had  given  his  version  twice  before  my  witnesses  and  I 
were  called  upon  to  testify  before  the  Dillingham  Committee, 
and  we  therefore  gave  our  testimony  with  full  knowledge  of 
Funk's  claim  concerning  where  the  conversation  occurred,  and 
with  a  full  understanding  of  the  benefit  that  would  have 

41 


EDWARD   HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

accrued  to  me  if  that  entire  conversation  had  taken  place  on 
the  couch.  But  I  knew  it  was  not  the  fact,  and  Mr.  Carney 
and  Mr.  Baker  and  Mr.  Hall  likewise  knew  that  it  was  not 
the  fact. 

I  knew  that  there  was  nothing  in  the  facts  that  would  in  any 
manner  reflect  upon  my  honesty  and  integrity,  and  that  those 
happenings  should  be  presented  to  the  committee  exactly  as 
they  occurred — and  they  were.  The  three  gentlemen  who 
were  with  me  on  that  occasion  would  not  for  a  moment  have 
tolerated  a  suggestion  from  any  source  to  testify  save  from 
their  memory  and  knowledge  of  the  facts. 

If  Funk's  statements  were  true,  the  entire  conversation 
necessarily  occurred  in  the  presence  and  hearing  of  these  three 
men  who  were  there  on  the  couch  with  me.  The  four  of  us 
swear  that  Funk  did  not  sit  down  on  the  couch,  and  that  no 
conversation  whatever  between  the  two  of  us  took  place  upon 
the  couch.  I  arose  as  he  approached  me,  and  we  stood  standing 
there  as  he  expressed  his  pleasure  over  the  election  of  Mr. 
Lorimer  and  asked  for  an  introduction  to  him.  Messrs.  Carney, 
Hall  and  Baker  heard  this  part  of  our  conversation  as  testified 
to  by  them. 

If  Funk  was  so  absolutely  in  error  about  where  the  conver- 
sation took  place — as  the  evidence  conclusively  shows  that 
he  was — would  you  not  say  (even  if  there  were  no  other  evi- 
dence to  show  it)  that  he  was  equally  wrong  about  the  con- 
versation itself?  Funk's  unsupported  word  is  manifestly  out- 
weighed by  the  evidence  of  three  witnesses  (excluding  myself) 
whose  reputations  for  truth  and  probity  of  character  have  not 
been  and  cannot  be  assailed. 

FUNK'S  IMPOSSIBLE  STORY 

But  aside  from  this  direct  contradiction  of  Funk  by  living 
witnesses,  the  inherent  improbabilities  of  his  claim  make  it 
unbelievable  to  any  fair-minded  man.  Funk,  in  the  various 
statements  that  he  had  made  at  different  times  and  before 
different  bodies,  said  in  effect  that  while  he  knew  me,  yet  I 
was  a  comparative  stranger  to  him.  On  one  occasion  he 

42 


EDWARD   HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

testified  that  he  never  had  any  dealings  with  me  but  once,  and 
that  was  years  before  this  alleged  talk. 

Before  one  committee,  he  swore  that  I  had  no  reason  to 
believe  that  he  or  his  company  was  friendly  to  Senator  Lorimer 
or  would  be  likely  to  contribute  to  his  election,  and  yet  he 
claims  that  when  we  met  in  the  Union  League  Club  on  the 
occasion  referred  to,  I,  a  comparative  stranger,  at  once  and 
without  any  preliminaries  plunged  into  a  proposition  to  have 
him  corruptly  contribute  to  the  expenses  of  the  election  of  a 
man  to  whom  he  was  not  friendly,  and  that  /  assumed,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  that  he  or  his  unfriendly  company  would 
make  the  contribution,  and  immediately  told  him  to  send  it  to 
Mr.  Tilden !  Can  you  conceive  of  anything  more  improbable  ? 
Would  any  sane  man  under  the  circumstances  assume  as  a 
matter  of  course  that  Funk  and  his  company,  who  were  not 
friendly  to  Lorimer's  election,  would  contribute  a  large  sum 
of  money,  and,  without  any  expression  whatever  on  Funk's 
part,  immediately  tell  him  the  name  of  the  man  who  was  to 
receive  the  fund,  and  request  Funk  to  send  the  assumed  con- 
tribution to  that  man? 

Mr.  Tilden  testified  that  he  never  heard  of  such  a  fund,  and 
if  Funk  had  sent  him  a  check  as  a  contribution  he  would  not 
have  known  what  it  was  for !  (Rec.  295.)  The  insinuation 
that  Mr.  Edward  Tilden  had  anything  to  do  with  the  alleged 
fund  was  thoroughly  investigated  by  the  United  States  Senate 
Committee  and  found  to  be  baseless.  Would  I  be  such  a  fool 
as  to  assume  that  Funk  and  his  company  would  send  a  contri- 
bution to  a  man  who  would  not  have  known  what  it  was  for  if 
he  had  received  it? 

The  improbability  of  this  feature  of  Funk's  story  no  doubt 
suggested  the  following  questions  put  to  him  by  the  attorney 
for  the  Dillingham  Committee: 

MR.  MARBLE:  Have  you  any  reason  other  than  this 
conversation  with  Mr.  Hines  to  associate  Mr.  Tilden  with 
this  transaction? 

MR.  FUNK:    Not  up  to  that  time. 

MR.  MARBLE  :   Have  you  any  now  ? 

43 


EDWARD   MINES   TO   THE    U.    L.    CLUB 

MR.  FUNK:  No — nothing  more  definite  than  the  fact 
that  I  have  noticed  here  at  Washington  that  the  gentlemen 
seem  to  be  friendly  and  together  more  or  less,  which 
would  probably  indicate  that  they  were  well  acquainted. 

MR.  MARBLE  :  You  mean  that  you  have  seen  Mr.  Tilden 
and  Mr.  Mines  together  here  in  Washington  ? 

MR.  FUNK:     I  have  noticed  them  about  considerably. 

MR.  MARBLE  :  That  is  all.  Have  you  any  other  reason 
to  associate  Mr.  Tilden  with  this  matter? 

MR.  FUNK:    No.  (555  Dill.) 

On  cross  examination  he  was  sifted  as  to  the  extent  of  this 
association  to  which  he  thus  tried  to  attach  significance,  and 
after  specific  questioning  he  said : 

"I  think  I  have  seen  them  (Mr.  Tilden  and  Mr.  Hines) 
here  once  or  twice." 

MR.  HYNES  :    Do  you  mean  in  the  witness  room  ? 

MR.  FUNK  :  It  may  have  been  in  the  hall  or  on  the 
sidewalk. 

MR.  HYNES  :  That  is  what  you  meant  by  that  association  ? 

MR.  FUNK:  Yes;  I  had  no — it  did  not  impress  me  as 
being  anything  that  was  entitled  to  or  had  any  particular 
significance. 

MR.  HYNES:     Well,  you  volunteered  the  statement. 

MR.  FUNK:    It  just  came  out  as  a  passing  observation. 

MR.  HYNES:     Yes;  a  passing  temptation. 
(614  Dill.  Com.) 

It  goes  without  saying  that  when  he  made  that  reply  to  Mr. 
Marble,  "Not  up  to  that  time,"  he  meant  to  convey  the  impres- 
sion that  other  reasons  developed  after  that  time.  And  when 
he  was  pressed  with  the  next  question,  he  gave  that  alleged 
association  as  the  "other  reason,"  and  it  was  only  when  he 
discovered  how  silly  this  "other  reason"  appeared  to  the  com- 
mittee as  well  as  to  everybody  else  that  he  pursued  his  usual 
tactics  of  "hedging." 

Is  anything  further  required  to  indicate  the  mental  attitude 
of  this  man  and  his  eagerness  to  draw  unjust  inference  and 
give  improper  color  to  trivial  and  innocent  occurrences?  Mr. 
Tilden,  like  myself  and  others,  was  at  the  time  in  attendance 
at  the  sessions  of  the  Dillingham  Committee  as  a  witness. 

44 


EDWARD   MINES   TO   THE   U.    L.    CLUB 

FUNK  VERSUS  KOHLSAAT 

But  Mr.  Tilden's  name  was  not  the  only  one  that  Funk  men- 
tioned in  connection  with  this  matter.  Mr.  Kohlsaat  swore  be- 
fore the  Dillingham  Committee  that  besides  the  name  of  Ed- 
ward Tilden,  Funk  gave  to  him  the  names  of  Mr.  E.  F. 
Conway,  Mr.  F.  Weyerhaeuser,  Mr.  Roger  Sullivan,  and  of  a 
man  then  dead.  (436  Dill.  Com.)  Mr.  Kohlsaat  also  testified 
that  he  gave  these  names  to  Mr.  Healy,  the  attorney  for  the 
Helm  Committee,  one  night  when  Healy  came  to  his  office  and 
asked  him  if  he  could  give  him  any  information  in  regard  to 
the  matter,  and  that  Mr.  Conway  was  called  as  a  witness  before 
the  Helm  Investigating  Committee  and  there  denied  all  knowl- 
edge of  the  matter;  and  Mr.  Kohlsaat  added,  "I  wish  to  say 
that  I  have  no  doubt  but  that  he  (Conway)  told  the  truth." 
(437  Dill.  Com.)  Funk,  however,  contradicted  Kohlsaat  in 
this  regard  and  swore  that  the  names  of  these  gentlemen  were 
not  mentioned  by  him,  and  that  he  knew  nothing  that  would 
justify  bringing  those  names  into  the  matter.  (546,  554,  555 
Dill.  Com.)  During  the  course  of  his  examination  before  the 
Dillingham  Committee  the  following  occurred : 

MR.  MARBLE  :  You  say  you  did  not  repeat  Mr.  Tilden's 
name  or  Mr.  Hines'  name  or  Mr.  Weyerhaeuser's  name 
or  Mr.  Conway's  name  in  that  connection  (referring  to  his 
conversation  with  Kohlsaat)  ? 

MR.  FUNK  :  I  did  not  repeat  Mr.  Weyerhaeuser's  name, 
to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  nor  any  other  name,  except 
Mr.  Hines'. 

MR.  MARBLE  :  Do  you  think  that  on  the  occasion-  of  the 
first  conversation  with  Mr.  Kohlsaat  you  mentioned  Mr. 
Hines'  name? 

MR.  FUNK  :  I  can  not  say  whether  it  was  the  first  con- 
versation or  the  second.  I  am  inclined  to  think  it  was  the 
second.  (The  two  conversations  were  several  days  apart.) 
(554  Dill.  Com.) 

MR.  MARBLE  :  On  one  or  the  other  of  the  occasions  you 
did  mention  Mr.  Hines'  name? 

MR.  FUNK:    Yes.     (555  Dill.  Com.) 

MR.  MARBLE:  What  do  you  say  to  the  mentioning  of 
Mr.  Tilden's  name  on  one  occasion  or  the  other  ? 

45 


EDWARD   HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

MR.  FUNK:    I  do  not  remember  whether  I  mentioned 
Tilden's  name  on  either  occasion.    (555  Dill.  Com.) 

If  Kohlsaat  told  the  truth  in  this  regard,  Funk  did  not.  I 
believe  that  Funk  did  on  that  occasion  mention  all  these  names 
for  the  purpose  of  impressing  Kohlsaat  with  his  "inside 
knowledge  of  affairs,"  never  dreaming  at  the  time  that  he 
would  be  called  upon  before  any  investigating  body  to  re- 
affirm his  false  statement  then  made  to  Kohlsaat.  But  when 
he  found  that  an  investigation  had  been  started  and  that 
everybody  whose  name  was  connected  with  the  alleged  trans- 
action would  be  called  upon  to  testify,  Funk  realized  that 
it  would  not  do  to  increase  the  number  of  witnesses  against 
him  by  connecting  too  many  names  with  the  alleged  transaction, 
and  therefore  dropped  the  names  of  Conway,  Sullivan,  Weyer- 
haeuser and  "the  man  who  since  died,"  even  though  by  so  doing 
he  was  obliged  to  contradict  his  friend  Kohlsaat  under  oath. 

However,  Messrs.  Conway  and  Sullivan  were  called  before 
the  Dillingham  Committee  while  that  Committee  was  holding 
a  session  at  Chicago,  and  testified  that  they  never  heard  of  any 
such  fund  as  Funk  mentioned,  nor  of  any  contribution  thereto. 
(603  Dill.  Com.) 

But  this  is  not  the  only  time  that  Mr.  Kohlsaat  was  forced 
to  contradict  the  allegations  of  his  friend  Funk.  In  fact,  if 
you  were  to  read  the  official  testimony  in  this  case  as  con- 
tained in  the  records  of  the  Dillingham  Committee,  you  would 
learn  that  even  Funk's  closest  friends  and  associates  contradict 
practically  every  positive  statement  he  makes.  Funk  told  the 
Dillingham  Committee  this:  (Page  554,  Dill.) 

MR.  MARBLE  :    Did  you  press  any  information  on  him  ? 
(Meaning  H.  H.  Kohlsaat) 

MR.  FUNK  :  No,  he  pumped  it  out  of  me. 
This  would  lead  one  to  infer  that  Mr.  Kohlsaat  obtained 
his  first  hint  of  this  falsehood  from  some  source  other  than 
Funk,  and  that  the  editor  laboriously  "pumped"  the  alleged 
details  out  of  Funk.  Let's  see  what  Kohlsaat  has  to  say  on 
this  point.  He  addressed  a  letter  to  Senator  Root  on  January 

46 


EDWARD  MINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

17,  1911,  which  was  "pumped"  out  of  Kohlsaat  by  the  Dill- 
ingham  Committee.  In  that  letter  Kohlsaat  thus  enlightens 
Senator  Root  concerning  the  manner  in  which  the  falsehood 

first  became  known  to  him : 
\ 

"Some  time  last  June  I  met  a  friend  (Funk),  who  is 
general  manager  of  a  Chicago  corporation  with  a  capital 
of  over  $25,000,000.  He  said :  'I  have  been  intending  to 
call  on  you  for  some  days  to  tell  you  of  an  incident  that 
occurred  right  after  Larimer's  election.' ': 

Mr.  Kohlsaat  poses  as  the  exemplar  of  truth.  What  motive 
could  he  have  had  in  telling  an  untruth  to  Senator  Root  ?  The 
language  in  the  above  letter  is  plain.  It  states  positively  that 
Funk  approached  Kohlsaat,  and  repudiates  Funk's  claim  that 
the  editor  "pumped"  the  information  out  of  him.  Who  told 
the  truth— Funk  or  Kohlsaat? 

FUNK  VERSUS  McCORMICK 

But  Funk  not  only  contradicted  Kohlsaat  before  the  Dilling- 
ham  Committee;  he  even  contradicted  his  superior  officer,  Mr. 
McCormick,  the  President  of  the  International  Harvester  Com- 
pany, an  illustration  of  which  is  to  be  found  in  the  following : 

MR.  MARBLE:  Have  you  been  engaged  in  work  before 
State  legislatures  on  behalf  of  the  International  Harvester 
Company  ? 

MR.  FUNK:  No.  (529  Dill.  Com.) 

Mr.  McCormick,  however,  when  he  was  testifying  before 
the  Committee,  directly  says  to  the  contrary,  as  shown  by  the 
following : 

SENATOR  KERN  :  Did  you  ever  have  a  person  who  was 
authorised  to  go  before  the  Legislature  and  Congress  to 
look  after  your  interests  ? 

MR.  MCCORMICK:  Mr.  Bancroft,  the  general  counsel, 
does  that  himself ;  and  Mr.  Funk  as  the  general  manager; 
or  myself  as  President. 

SENATOR  KERN:  Does  Mr.  Funk  pay  any  attention  to 
legislative  matters,  that  you  know  of  ? 

47 


EDWARD   MINES   TO   THE    U.    L.    CLUB 

MR.  McCoRMicK :  He  does.  (22  Dill.  Com.) 

Who  told  the  truth — Cyrus  McCormick  or  Clarence  S.  Funk  ? 

Many  other  glaring  contradictions  between  the  testimony  of 

Funk  on  the  one  hand  and  that  of  McCormick,  Kohlsaat  and 

Bancroft  on  the  other  hand,  in  relation  to  their  conversations 

with  Funk,  as  well  as  repeated  contradictions  of  Funk  by  Funk 

himself,  appear  from  the  record  of  the  proceedings  of  every 

investigating  committee  or  body  before  whom  Funk  testified; 

but  to  undertake  to  cite  them  all  here  would  extend  this  booklet 

into  a  voluminous  record. 

One  of  the  numerous  illustrations  of  the  untrustworthiness 
of  Funk's  statements  (even  when  under  oath)  is  found  in  his 
testimony  before  the  Dillingham  Committee  that  "He  (Hines) 
was  very  active  down  at  Springfield  pulling  wires  for  the 
election  of  Senator  Lorimer."  When  specifically  questioned  in 
regard  to  this  remarkable  statement  he  said,  "/  have  a  very 
distinct  recollection  that  he  (Hines)  was  down  there  and  he  was 
very  busy  there."  He  also  said  it  was  the  common  talk  that  I 
was  down  there  and  that  that  fact  appeared  more  or  less  in  all 
of  the  newspapers  both  before  and  after  the  election  of  Lorimer, 
and  that  I  was  "very  active  down  there  in  soliciting  men  to 
support  the  Senator."  (595  Dill.  Com.) 

A    PALPABLE    FALSEHOOD 

This  was  absolutely  false.  I  was  not  in  Springfield  at  the 
time  of  the  election,  nor  for  five  years  before  that  time,  nor 
after  the  election  until  March,  1911  (when  I  appeared  before 
the  Helm  Committee),  nearly  two  years  after  the  election,  and 
no  newspaper  ever  printed  a  line  to  the  effect  that  I  was  in 
Springfield  or  connected  me  at  that  time  in  any  way  with  the 
election  of  Senator  Lorimer.  This  was  shown  before  the  Dill- 
ingham Committee  and  also  before  the  Union  League  Club 
Board,  by  undisputed  and  conclusive  evidence. 

This  palpable  falsehood  on  the  part  of  Funk  is  very  significant 
when  taken  in  connection  with  the  rest  of  his  story.  Funk 
testified  before  the  Helm  and  Dillingham  Committees,  that  I 
said  to  him,  "Well,  we  put  Lorimer  over  down  at  Springfield"; 

48 


EDWARD   MINES  TO  THE   U.    L.   CLUB 

that  "we  had  to  act  quickly,  when  the  time  came;"  and  that 
"we  had  no  chance  to  consult  any  one  before  hand."  This 
sworn  testimony  of  Funk  shows  that  it  was  based  upon  the  sup- 
position that  I  had  been  down  to  Springfield  and  was  there  on 
the  ground  at  and  immediately  preceding  the  election  of  Senator 
Lorimer  and  actually  took  part  down  there  in  that  election. 
Funk  took  it  for  granted  that  I  was  in  Springfield,  and  fabri- 
cated his  impossible  story  upon  that  theory. 

When  Funk  was  before  the  Dillingham  Committee  several 
of  the  Senators  could  not  understand — if  he  really  had  such 
knowledge  as  he  then  claimed  to  have — why  he  did  not  appear 
before  the  Burrows  Committee  when  it  was  sitting  right  across 
the  street  from  his  office  in  Chicago,  and  lay  the  matter  before 
that  committee ;  and  the  reason  that  Funk  finally  gave  why 
he  did  not  do  so  was  the  fanciful  one  that  he  possessed  the 
knowledge  as  an  officer  of  the  International  Harvester  Com- 
pany and  not  as  an  individual;  and  that  he  weighed  his  duty 
to  his  company  against  his  duty  as  a  citizen  and  decided  in 
favor  of  the  company!  This  showed  the  exalted  character  of 
the  citizenship  of  Clarence  S.  Funk! 

FUNK'S  WRONG  TO  THE  UNION  LEAGUE  CLUB 

The  charge  against  me  before  the  Union  League  Club  was 
that  I  held  a  certain  interview  within  its  walls  with  Clarence 
S.  Funk.  According  to  his  version  of  that  interview  I  made 
a  criminal  proposition  to  him.  What  was  his  plain  duty  under 
the  alleged  circumstances  ?  It  was  his  duty  as  a  citizen  and  his 
obligation  as  a  member  of  an  honorable  organisation  immedi- 
ately to  denounce  and  expose  me.  Did  he  do  this?  No. 

What  was  his  attitude  according  to  his  own  testimony? 
He  has  repeatedly  testified  that  he  did  not  consider  my  alleged 
proposition  a  violation  of  the  rules  or  principles  of  the  Union 
League  Club.  What  do  you  think  of  a  man  who  has  that  con- 
ception of  the  lofty  principles  thus  set  forth  in  your  Articles 
of  Association : 

"The  condition  of  membership  shall  be  absolute  and 
unqualified  loyalty  to    the    Government    of    the    United 

49 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE  U.   L.   CLUB 

States,"  and  "that  the  primary  objects  of  this  Association 
shall  be: 

"(i)  To  encourage  and  promote  by  moral,  social  and 
political  influence,  unconditional  loyalty  to  the  Federal 
Government,  and  to  defend  and  protect  the  integrity  and 
perpetuity  of  this  Nation. 

"(2)  To  inculcate  a  higher  appreciation  of  the  value 
and  sacred  obligations  of  American  citizenship.  .  .  . 
and  to  aid  in  the  enforcement  of  all  laws  enacted  to  pre- 
serve the  purity  of  the  ballot  box. 

"(3)  To  resist  and  oppose  corruption  and  promote  econ- 
omy in  office,  and  to  secure  honesty  and  efficiency  in  the 
administration  of  National,  State  and  Municipal  affairs." 

It  makes  no  difference  whether  you  accept  what  Funk  says 
as  true  or  if  you  reject  it  as  false — he  stands  condemned  out 
of  his  own  mouth  as  recreant  to  the  high  principles  just 
enumerated. 

I  am  not  the  author  of  this  charge  against  Funk — he  is 
the  author  of  it.  It  is  spread  on  the  official  records  of  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States.  It  appears  on  the  official  record 
of  my  trial  before  your  Board  of  Directors.  It  is  affirmed  by 
the  testimony  of  Cyrus  H.  McCormick  and  Edgar  A.  Bancroft. 
Clarence  S.  Funk  made  his  oath  that  he  suppressed  knowledge 
of  a  crime  committed  against  the  people  of  Illinois  because  of 
fear  that  money  losses  might  result  from  bringing  criminals 
to  justice!  And  I  am  expelled  on  the  unsubstantiated  word  of 
a  man  who  gives  himself  that  character! 

WHEN  FUNK  WANTED  FAVORS 

You  will  remember  that  in  our  Union  League  Club  talk  he 
asked  me  to  introduce  him  to  Senator  Lorimer,  and  he  says 
(p.  55)  that  I  afterwards  did  introduce  him  to  Mr.  Lorimer  in 
Washington,  that  he  went  up  to  Mr.  Lorimer's  room,  was 
introduced  and  had  a  pleasant  chat  with  the  Senator.  This 
shows  that  I  was  acting  in  exact  accord  with  the  promise  I 
had  made  to  him  at  the  Union  League  Club  at  his  request  so 
to  introduce  him,  and  is  corroborative  of  my  statements  in  that 
regard. 

If  Funk's  present  version  of  that  Union  League  Club  talk 

So 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE  U.   L.   CLUB 

were  correct,  not  for  a  moment  would  I  have  thought  of  intro- 
ducing him  to  Senator  Lorimer,  nor  would  he  for  a  moment 
have  permitted  such  an  introduction.  This  introduction  was 
in  Mr.  Lorimer's  room  at  the  New  Willard  Hotel  in  the  fall 
of  1910,  at  the  time  of  the  deep  Waterways  Convention  in  Wash- 
ington. It  is  apparent  from  this  that  at  that  time  Mr.  Funk 
had  not  yet  put  any  sinister  construction  upon  our  Union 
League  talk,  and  this  conduct  shows  that  he  regarded  it  of 
the  same  innocent  character  that  I  did,  and  as  it  really  was. 

Mr.  Funk  testified  that  on  March  4,  1911  (Rec.  58),  he  was 
at  Washington  on  the  last  day  of  the  session  of  Congress  where 
there  was  an  important  matter  in  which  his  company  was  inter- 
ested and  which  he  was  watching  pretty  closely;  (you  will 
remember  that  he  had  testified  before  the  Dillingham  Committee 
that  he  did  not  do  that  kind  of  business;)  that  when  he  sought 
admission  to  the  Senate  galleries  he  could  not  get  in,  and  he 
said,  "I  found  myself  shut  out,"  and  explains  that  as  he  turned 
away  he  met  me  and  told  me  that  he  could  not  get  in,  and 
said,  "My  pulls  are  all  expended;"  and  relates  that  I  (Hines) 
said,  "Come  here  with  me;  I  can  get  you  in."  There  was  a 
doorkeeper  "whom  Mr.  Hines  apparently  knew,  and  he  very 
kindly  told  the  gentleman  to  let  me  get  in  there,"  and  he  thus 
got  in.  He  admitted  that  he  did  not  hesitate  to  accept  this 
favor.  It  appeared  to  me  at  the  time  that  he  was  very  glad  to 
accept  it,  and  in  fact  he  so  expressed  himself  to  me. 

Again,  on  the  5th  of  March,  1911,  when  Mrs.  Hines  and  I 
were  returning  from  Washington  to  Chicago,  we  were  in  the 
dining  car.  Mr.  Funk  also  was  there,  and  he  came  to  our 
table  and  chatted  with  us  for  some  time  in  a  very  friendly 
way,  and  again  expressed  his  great  appreciation  of  the  courtesy 
that  I  had  shown  him  the  day  before  in  getting  him  into  the 
Senate  gallery.  These  facts  also  show  that  at  that  time  he  had 
no  feeling  of  indignation  or  resentment  toward  me,  but  quite 
the  contrary,  and  that  he  had  no  different  idea  of  the  innocent 
character  of  our  talk  in  the  Union  League  Club. 

If  Funk  at  that  time  really  considered  that  talk  as  of  a 
sinister  character,  would  he  as  an  honest  man  have  conducted 

Si 


EDWARD  MINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

himself  toward  me  as  he  did?  Would  he  have  solicited  and 
accepted  these  favors  at  my  hands?  At  that  time  I  had  not 
the  faintest  suspicion  that  Funk  viewed  our  Union  League 
talk  as  being  of  an  improper  nature,  and  I  don't  believe  he 
did  either.  This  occurred  a  long  time  after  the  Burrows  Com- 
mittee had  begun  its  investigation  and  several  weeks  after  the 
Helm  Committee  was  organized! 

Funk  did  not  change  front  until  later  on. 

WHAT  I  NATURALLY  ASSUMED 

When  Funk  approached  me  in  the  Union  League  Club  and 
expressed  himself  as  pleased  over  the  election  of  Senator  Lori- 
mer  I  surmised  at  once  that  he  wished  to  end  the  feud  which 
had  existed  for  years  between  the  Harvester  company  and  Mr. 
Lorimer. 

Funk  put  the  proposition  that  his  company  should  assist 
in  reimbursing  the  campaign  expenses  of  Senator  Lorimer  in 
such  a  manner  that  I  assumed  that  he  meant  a  small  contribu- 
tion for  legitimate  expenses,  but  also  recognized  that  this  was 
only  a  pretext  for  placating  the  victorious  candidate.  It  was 
generally  known  that  the  Harvester  company  was  a  liberal  con- 
tributor to  campaign  funds,  and  also  that  Funk  had  much  to 
do  with  details  pertaining  to  legislation.  Therefore,  the  sug- 
gestion made  by  Funk  that  Senator  Lorimer  should  not  be 
compelled  to  stand  all  the  expenses  of  his  campaign  did  not 
surprise  me.  I  had  no  thought  that  his  aim  was  to  corrupt 
Senator  Lorimer,  but  took  it  for  granted  that  the  new  general 
manager  was  eager  to  win  the  friendship  of  a  man  who  had 
been  an  enemy. 

But  I  knew  nothing  about  Senator  Lorimer's  campaign  dis- 
bursements, and  told  Funk  so.  I  had  been  in  Washington  most 
of  the  time  for  months.  I  had  not  seen  Mr.  Lorimer  for  weeks. 
I  knew  absolutely  nothing  of  "practical"  politics,  and  had  not 
the  remotest  idea  of  how  much  the  legitimate  expenses  of 
such  a  campaign  would  amount  to.  I  promised,  however,  to 
ask  Mr.  Lorimer  and  to  inform  Funk  on  the  matter. 

I  saw  Mr.  Lorimer  on  the  following  Sunday.  Only  on  my 

52 


EDWARD   HINES  TO   THE   U.    L.   CLUB 

representation  that  I  had  promised  Funk  an  introduction  did 
he  finally  consent  to  grant  it — not  as  a  favor  to  Funk  but  to  me. 
Senator  Lorimer  informed  me  that  his  campaign  expenses  were 
nominal,  and  made  the  remark :  "You  know  I  don't  drink  nor 
smoke,  and  therefore  have  no  expenses." 

I  was  compelled  to  leave  Chicago  for  Washington  on  the 
following  day  and  had  no  time  to  advise  Funk  concerning  this. 
I  accordingly  asked  Mr.  Wiehe,  the  Secretary  of  our  company, 
to  notify  Funk  that  there  was  nothing  in  the  matter  discussed 
between  us  in  the  Union  League  Club.  I  did  not  inform  Mr. 
Wiehe  the  subject  of  that  discussion.  I  was  merely  desirous  of 
informing  Funk  that  there  was  no  fund  to  reimburse.  I  as- 
sumed that  if  I  got  word  to  him  that  "there  was  nothing  in 
the  matter"  discussed  between  us  a  few  days  before  in  the 
Union  League  Club  he  would  understand  that  Senator  Lori- 
mer either  had  no  campaign  expenses  or  declined  to  accept  a 
contribution  from  Funk. 

Senator  Lorimer  was  elected  on  May  26,  1909.  The  Union 
League  interview  between  Funk  and  myself  was  on  May  27.  I 
saw  Senator  Lorimer  on  Sunday,  May  30,  and  left  for  Wash- 
ington on  the  following  day. 

FUNK  TRIES  TO  SEE  ME 

Mr.  Wiehe  testified  before  your  Board  that  before  leaving 
for  Washington  I  had  told  him  to  see  Funk  and  to  tell  him 
"that  there  was  nothing  in  the  matter"  that  Funk  had  talked 
to  me  about.  Here  is  an  extract  from  Mr.  Wiehe's  testimony : 

"I  attempted  to  see  Mr.  Funk,  but  was  unable  to  do  so, 
he  not  being  in  his  office,  and  the  next  day  I  telephoned 
him.  He  said  he  would  like  to  see  Mr.  Hines.  I  told  him 
Mr.  Hines  was  out  of  the  city,  and  Funk  said  he  was  very 
sorry  and  wanted  to  know  where  he  was.  I  told  him 
Washington.  He  said  he  was  going  to  Washington  via 
New  York  and  would  try  to  see  Hines  there. 

"Mr.  Hines  called  me  up  every  day  or  two  from  Wash- 
ington on  the  telephone,  and  I  think  it  was  in  one  of  these 
conversations  I  told  him  what  Funk  said,  and  wires  were 
exchanged  between  me  and  Mr.  Hines  with  reference  to 

53 


EDWARD   HINES  TO   THE   U.    L.   CLUB 

this  matter.  One  of  these  telegrams,  dated  June  4,  ad- 
dressed to  Edward  Hines,  New  Willard  Hotel,  Washing- 
ton, D.  C.,  was  as  follows: 

"  'Funk  New  York  today.  Leaves  this  afternoon  Wash- 
ington. There  tomorrow.  You  can  reach  him  today, 
George  Perkins'  office  or  Judge  Gary,  51  Broadway,  E. 
H.  L.  Co.'  " 

I  had  planned  to  leave  Washington  for  Chicago  that  day. 
Not  considering  that  Funk  had  any  business  with  me  of  pressing 
importance,  I  declined  to  change  my  plans,  assuming  that 
we  could  meet  later  in  Chicago.  I  therefore  sent  this  telegram 
to  Mr.  Wiehe : 

"Washington,  D.  C.,  June  4,  1909.  Edward  Hines  Lum- 
ber Company,  Chicago.  Will  try.  Have  Funk  meet  me 
in  Chicago  Saturday  or  Sunday.  Could  meet  him  any  time 
late.  Leave  here  today.  Answer  quick.  Edward  Hines." 

I  returned  from  Washington  to  Chicago  but  received  no 
further  communication  from  Funk  on  the  subject  of  Senator 
Lorimer's  campaign  expenses,  nor  was  the  subject  ever  men- 
tioned between  us  again  at  any  time. 

When  questioned  by  the  Dillingham  Committee  and  before 
your  Board,  Funk  tried  to  make  it  appear  that  Mr.  Wiehe  had 
not  called  at  his  office  or  telephoned  him  about  the  matter. 
Under  pressure  of  cross  examination,  Funk  finally  qualified 
by  stating  that  he  "had  no  memory  of  it,"  that  he  "could  not 
recall  it,"  but  (p.  238)  reluctantly  admitted  that  his  addresses 
in  New  York,  telegraphed  by  Mr.  Wiehe  to  me,  were  correct, 
and  Funk  also  admitted  that  he  had  gone  to  New  York  and 
was  at  those  addresses  at  the  time  Mr.  Wiehe  had  so  advised  me. 

These  telegrams  tell  a  plain  story.  They  were  based  on 
contemporaneous  information  which  could  have  been  received 
only  from  the  office  of  the  International  Harvester  Company. 
If  Funk  were  not  seeking  me,  why  did  Mr.  Wiehe  wire  me 
Funk's  addresses  in  New  York?  If  I  were  seeking  Funk,  why 
did  I  not  remain  in  Washington  and  await  his  coming?  It  is 
admitted  that  the  contemplated  meeting  never  was  held,  and 

54 


EDWARD   HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

I  can  only  surmise,  of  course,  the  motive  Funk  had  in  then 
seeking  a  conference  and  in  later  dropping  the  matter. 

The  conclusion  is  inevitable  that  Funk  was  not  satisfied  with 
the  purport  of  the  message  conveyed  to  him  by  Mr.  Wiehe, 
and  that  he  wished  again  to  take  the  matter  up  with  me.  The 
conclusion  also  is  inevitable  that  I  considered  the  incident 
closed.  I  was  not  averse  to  conferring  with  Mr.  Funk  con- 
cerning it,  but  did  not  rate  it  of  sufficient  importance  to  remain 
an  extra  day  in  Washington.  These  conclusions  are  affirmed 
by  telegrams  submitted  to  your  Board.  The  negative  evasions 
of  Funk  are  supported  by  nothing. 

TWO    MOST    SIGNIFICANT    FACTS 

Before  considering  briefly  the  strange  testimony  of  Herman 
H.  Hettler  against  me,  I  desire  to  call  your  attention  to  two 
most  significant  facts: 

First:  In  all  of  the  hearings,  formal  and  informal,  not  a 
witness  has  testified  against  me  who  was  not  forced  to  admit 
either  personal  enmity  towards  me,  or  that  he  was  allied  with 
interests  opposed  to  me.  Not  a  line  of  disinterested  testimony 
has  ever  been  given  against  me  in  any  hearing. 

Second:  Even  more  remarkable  and  significant  is  the  fact 
that  these  biased  witnesses  confine  themselves  to  a  narration  of 
alleged  statements  made  to  them  either  by  myself  or  by  Mr. 
Wiehe.  They  do  not  charge  that  they  possess  actual  knowledge 
that  any  wrongful  act  was  committed,  but  picture  Mr.  Wiehe 
or  myself  as  relating  to  them  the  details  of  a  grave  offense. 
You  are  asked  by  them  to  believe  that  I  was  so  elated  with  the 
success  of  a  crime  that  I  bored  them  with  its  recital. 

THE  SO-CALLED  HETTLER  INCIDENT 

I  would  not  dignify  the  testimony  given  by  Herman  H. 
Hettler  with  any  consideration,  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that 
it  throws  a  sharp  light  on  the  methods  and  absurd  extremes 
used  by  the  prosecution  to  make  a  case  against  me. 

Hettler  does  not  like  me.  He  informed  the  Helm  and  Dill- 

55 


EDWARD   HINES  TO   THE    U.    L.    CLUB 

ingham  Committees  to  that  effect,  and  also  stated  that  he  was 
my  "business  rival."  He  gave  certain  testimony  before  those 
investigating  bodies.  When  I  was  called  before  the  Dilling- 
ham  Committee  I  gave  certain  of  the  reasons  which  account 
for  the  enmity  of  Hettler  towards  me.  I  shall  not  repeat  them 
here.  These  disclosures  naturally  deepened  his  resentment, 
and  he  had  his  innings  before  your  Board.  You  will  find  his 
testimony  in  full  in  the  official  record  of  those  proceedings, 
which  should  be  on  file  in  the  Union  League  Club.  Read  it 
and  judge  of  his  motives  in  giving  it.  Here  is  a  digest  of 
the  facts: 

On  the  day  of  the  senatorial  election  Mr.  Wiehe  and  I 
went  to  the  Union  League  Club,  remained  at  luncheon  and 
were  there  several  hours.  We  met  and  conversed  with  many 
of  the  members,  among  them  Herman  H.  Hettler.  Shortly 
before  meeting  Mr.  Hettler  I  had  called  up  the  local  office  of 
the  Associated  Press  and  had  learned  that  Mr.  Lorimer  had 
been  elected  Senator.  I  informed  Mr.  Wiehe  and  others  to 
that  effect.  I  was  pleased  with  the  result  and  probably  showed 
it  in  my  manner,  but  only  one  man  has  come  forward  and  put 
a  false  construction  on  what  I  said  that  afternoon,  and  that  man 
was  Herman  H.  Hettler,  who  admits  his  enmity  to  me  and  who 
describes  himself  as  my  "business  rival." 

Is  it  not  a  most  remarkable  thing  that  all  of  my  alleged  in- 
discretions have  been  made  to  men  whom  I  recognised  as 
unfriendly,  and  against  whom  I  naturally  would  have  been  on 
guard  in  making  statements  of  any  nature? 

Mr.  Wiehe  and  I  met  Mr.  Hettler  and  passed  a  few  words 
with  him.  He  said  to. me:  "You  seem  to  be  pleased.  What 
is  new?"  I  told  him  I  had  heard  some  good  news;  that  the 
Associated  Press  had  informed  me  that  Mr.  Lorimer  had  been 
elected  Senator,  and  that  I  was  very  glad  to  hear  it. 

Mr.  Hettler  was  called  before  the  Board  and  gave  his  version 
of  the  conversation  as  follows : 

I  was  at  the  cigar  stand  getting  some  cigars.  Some 
one  touched  me  on  the  shoulder.  I  saw  it  was  Mr.  Hines. 
He  asked  me  if  I  knew  the  name  of  the  new  Senator, 

56 


EDWARD   HINES  TO   THE   U.    L.    CLUB 

and  told  me  it  was  Mr.  Lorimer;  that  he  had  just  been 
elected ;  that  he  had  just  come  out  of  the  telephone  booth, 
where  he  had  been  holding  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Lori- 
mer. Mr.  Hines  said  he  had  elected  him.  He  said,  "I  did 
it  myself  personally."  He  seemed  to  be  quite  pleased.  I 
have  no  distinct  recollection  of  any  more  remarks.  He 
spoke  in  a  very  loud  tone.  I  did  not  consider  it  confidential 
(pp.  252-255.)  /  attached  no  importance  whatever  to  the 
conversation.  I  did  not  think  he  intended  to  convey  to  me 
any  information  further  than  possibly  showing  me  he  was  a 
powerful  man.  This  was  months  or  a  year  before  there 
were  any  newspaper  articles  or  intimations  of  any  irregu- 
larity as  applied  to  that  election.  Mr.  Hines  and  I  were 
not  considered  very  friendly  (p.  255). 

I  made  no  such  remarks,  but  even  if  I  had  made  them  they 
would  have  had  no  bearing  whatever  on  the  question  of  my 
alleged  conversation  of  the  following  day  with  Funk.  Hettler's 
own  version  of  this  incident  indicates  nothing  beyond  the  fact 
that  I  was  pleased  over  the  election  of  Senator  Lorimer,  and 
felt  that  I  had  helped  bring,  it  about  in  the  way  I  have  told  you. 
It  was  not  significant  of  anything  zwong  on  my  part.  I  did  not 
call  Mr.  Lorimer  on  telephone  from  the  Club  that  day,  as  the 
records  of  the  Club  and  the  telephone  company  certify. 

But  look  at  the  inherent  improbability  and  absurdity  of  cer- 
tain details  of  Hettler's  statement!  He  has  me  boasting  in 
a  loud  tone  of  voice  that  "I  elected  Lorimer  personally,"  and 
we  find  Hettler  explaining,  that  he  "attached  no  importance 
whatever  to  the  conversation."  Let  us  see  about  that. 

This  conversation  was  alleged  to  have  occurred  at  the  cigar 
stand  and  in  the  presence  of  the  Club  attendant  at  the  stand, 
a  young  man  named  Donald  Frame.  Hettler  was  directly  in- 
strumental in  securing  this  Club  servant  as  a  witness  against 
me,  and  you  can  judge  of  the  character  of  the  methods  em- 
ployed by  Hettler  from  a  reading  of  his  testimony  and  that 
of  the  cigar  clerk,  as  found  in  the  official  record  of  the  hear- 
ings, from  which  these  extracts  are  taken : 

DONALD  FRAME:     I   was  showing   Mr.   Hettler  some 
cigars  at  the  time,  and  Mr.  Hines  approached  the  case 

57 


EDWARD   HINES  TO  THE   U.    L.   CLUB 

from  the  back  part  of  the  house,  and  when  he  got  to  Mr. 
Hettler  he  made  the  remark  that  he  had  elected  Mr.  Lori- 
mer.  There  were  a  few  other  words  but  I  didn't  get  all 

of  it.    They  moved  away  just  as  soon  as  that  was  said 

As  near  as  I  can  recollect  he  said :  "I  have  elected  Lori- 
mer  our  next  Senator."  (270) 

More  than-  two  years  passed  before  Donald  Frame  was 
produced  on  the  witness  stand  before  the  Dillingham  Com- 
mittee to  fortify  the  testimony  given  by  H.  H.  Hettler.  The 
methods  employed  to  make  him  available  as  a  witness  can  best 
be  determined  by  a  study  of  his  cross-examination :  (Dill.  1413) 

MR.  HYNES  :  When  were  you  first  spoken  to  about  this 
after  its  occurrence? 

MR.  FRAME:  Possibly  8  or  10  days  afterwards,  by  Mr. 
Hettler. 

MR.  HYNES:     What  did  he  say  to  you  then? 

MR.  FRAME:  He  said  it  was  a  peculiar  remark,  and 
asked  me  if  I  had  heard  it. 

MR.  HYNES:  Did  he  state  what  the  peculiar  remark 
was? 

MR.  FRAME:    No;  he  did  not  say  just  the  exact  words. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  :  Give  your  best  recollection  of  the 
interview. 

MR.  FRAME  (after  a  pause)  :  /  cannot  give  you  the 
talk  that  we  had.  I  do  not  remember  it. 

MR.  HYNES:  In  what  connection  did  he  say  it  was  a 
peculiar  remark?  Was  it  in  trying  to  refresh  your  recol- 
lection? Did  he  not  say:  "It  was  rather  a  peculiar  re- 
mark. You  ought  to  remember  that"?  Did  he  say  any- 
thing like  that  to  you  ? 

MR.  FRAME:  No;  not  at  that  time.  He  said  something, 
about  it  being  a  peculiar  remark  shortly  after  Mr.  Hines 
had  said  it — after  Mr.  Hines  had  left  the  Club. 

MR.  HYNES:  Did  he  talk  with  you  after  Mr.  Hines 
left? 

MR.  FRAME:    Yes,  sir. 

MR.  HYNES:  Did  he  ask  you  whether  you  heard  it  or 
not? 

MR.  FRAME  :    Yes,  sir. 

MR.  HYNES  :  How  did  he  put  the  question  to  you  when 
he  asked  you  whether  you  had  heard  it  or  not  ? 

58 


EDWARD   HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

MR.  FRAME:  He  said:  "That  was  a  peculiar  remark. 
Did  you  get  it?" 

MR.  HYNES:  Did  Mr.  Hettler  speak  with  you  on  this 
subject  at  any  time  since  that  occasion,  which  you  fix  at 
about  10  days  after  the  occurrence  ? 

MR.  FRAME:  Why,  when  he  would  come  in,  maybe,  he 
would  speak  to  me  and  possibly  smile,  or  ask  me  how  I 
was,  or  something-  of  that  kind,  but  he  never  spoke 

MR.  HYNES:    On  this  subject? 

MR.  FRAME:  A  few  words  might  have  passed  on  the 
subject. 

Here  you  have  the  picture  of  my  fellow  Club  member, 
going  repeatedly  back  to  this  employee  and  talking  with  him 
concerning  a  conversation  which  this  Club  servant  was  pre- 
sumed to  have  overheard.  Hettler  had  two  years  in  which 
to  "refresh  the  memory"  of  young  Frame.  It  must  have  been 
a  delectable  task  for  "my  business  rival."  Why  did  he  do  it? 
You  could  never  imagine.  We  are  coming  to  the  explana- 
tion which  Hettler  gave  before  your  Board  (U.  L.  256)  : 

QUESTION  :  Have  you  any  reason  to  suppose  that  any 
man  who  was  serving  at  the  cigar  stand  heard  that  remark  ? 

MR.  HETTLER:    Yes. 

QUESTION:    Heard  it  at  the  time? 

MR.  HETTLER:  He  certainly  ought,  because  he  could 
not  help  but  hear  it. 

QUESTION  :    Was  anything  afterwards  said  between  you  ? 

MR.  HETTLER:    Not  at  that  time. 

QUESTION  :    Was  anything  afterwards  said  between  you 

MR.  HETTLER:  Yes.  Some  time  after  that,  I  don't 
know  how  long. 

QUESTION  :    Can  you  fix  it  approximately  ? 

MR.  HETTLER:    I  am  sorry  to  say  that  I  cannot. 

QUESTION  :    Was  it  a  year  ? 

MR.  HETTLER:    /  couldn't  say. 

You  cannot  fail  to  note  that  the  two  important  witnesses 
in  this  stupendous  affair  do  not  agree.  You  have  read  what 
young  Frame  said  before  the  Dillingham  Committee.  Now 
read  what  he  said  recently  before  your  Board  (U.  L.  271)  : 

QUESTION:    When  did  Mr.  Hettler  mention  it  to  you? 

59 


EDWARD   HIKES  TO  THE   U.    L.   CLUB 

MR.  FRAME  :  Well,  we  spoke  about  it  immediately  after 
well,  when  he  came  back  to  buy  cigars  we  said  something 
about  it,  and  I  believe  when  he  returned  in  about  ten  or 
twelve  days  after  this  occurred. 

You  can  judge  as  well  as  I  concerning  the  veracity  of  H. 
H.  Hettler  and  your  Club  employee.  One  of  them  certainly 
told  an  untruth.  We  will  now  resume  a  study  of  Mr.  Hettler's 
testimony  before  your  Board.  Bear  in  mind  that  Donald  Frame 
testifies  that  Hettler  repeatedly  brought  up  the  subject  of 
my  alleged  remarks.  Bear  in  mind  that  Hettler  assured  your 
Board  that  he  "attached  no  importance  whatever  to  the  con- 
versation, at  that  time."  (U.  L.  258)  Bear  in  mind  that  I  con- 
ducted it  in  "a  loud  tone  of  voice,"  and  that  I  was  talking  to 
my  "business  rival."  Now  let  us  see  why  Mr.  Hettler  was  so 
solicitous  concerning  the  recollections  of  Donald  Frame : 

MR.  HETTLER  :  It  was  some  time  after  this  that  I  asked 
him  (Donald  Frame)  about  it,  and  the  real  reason  I  had 
at  the  time  for  doing  so,  it  appeared  to  me  that  the  young 
man  tvas  somewhat  embarrassed.  I  suppose  the  Club  eti- 
quette is  that  employees  do  not  hear  conversations  between 
members.  But  in  my  small  way  I  ivish  to  absolve  that 
young  man  from  any  blame  in  that  connection,  because  it 
wow  impossible  for  him  to  avoid  hearing  it.  After  I  tes- 
tified at  the  Helm  Committee  I  then  spoke  to  him,  at  one 
time  and  asked  him  if  he  recollected  the  conversation.  He 
said  that  he  did.  I  purposely  avoided  asking  him  any  ques- 
tions on  the  subject,  referring  to  it  in  any  way,  and  I  also 
avoided  the  possibility  of  knowing  the  young  man's  name, 
for  I  inferred  there  might  be  unpleasant  consequences  for 
him  if  he  were  drawn  into  the  case  by  subpoena.  At 
Springfield  they  asked  me  the  question,  and  I  told  them 
of  the  young,  man  that  heard  it,  but  I  didn't  know  his 
name. 

QUESTION  :    You  cannot  fix  the  date  of  it  ? 

MR.  HETTLER:  I  think  I  spoke  to  him  prior  to  the 
Helm  Committee  in  a  casual  sort  of  way  once  or  twice. 
and  then  after  I  came  back  from  the  Helm  Committee,  in 
buying  a  cigar  or  something  of  that  kind,  I  would  ask  him 
if  he  was  still  in  the  city,  not  referring  to  anything,  and 
I  did  not  know  whether  the  things  were — the  idea  in  my 

60 


EDWARD   HINES  TO   THE   U.    L.   CLUB 

mind — all  the  idea  in  my  mind  was   I   was  wondering 
whether  he  would  be  subpoenaed.    (257-258) 

Even  Funk  was  unable  to  beat  that!  Hettler  starts  out 
with  the  premise  that  he  "attached  no  importance  whatever 
at  that  time  to  the  conversation."  The  alleged  conversation 
was  addressed  to  him.  It  was  overheard  by  the  cigar  clerk, 
and  according  to  Hettler,  Club  etiquette  prescribes  that  em- 
ployees "do  not  hear  conversations  between  members."  What 
then  happens?  According  to  young  Frame,  Hettler's  support- 
ing witness,  Hettler  immediately  proceeds  to  discuss  with  the 
Club  employee  a  conversation  he  was  supposed  not  to  hear, 
or  at  least  to  ignore  and  try  to  forget. 

What  do  we  then  learn  from  Hettler  ?  He  tells  your  Board  : 
"It  appeared  to  me  that  the  young  man  was  somewhat  em- 
barrassed." In  the  name  of  common  sense,  WHY?  Why 
should  young  Frame  be  ''embarrassed"  over  a  conversation  to 
which  Hettler  attached  "no  importance  whatever?"  To  re- 
lieve the  "embarrassment"  of  the  young  cigar  clerk,  and  to 
make  him  conform  strictly  to  the  requirements  of  "Club  eti- 
quette," Hettler  continues  to  greet  him  pleasantly,  smile  and 
ask  him  how  he  was,  and  occasionally  bring  up  the  alleged 
conversation  to  which  Hettler  asserts  he  "attached  no  import- 
ance whatever." 

Note  the  tender  solicitude  of  Hettler  and  his  fear  that  young 
Frame  would  be  subpoenaed !  Note  his  apprehension  that 
"there  might  be  unpleasant  consequences  for  him  if  he  were 
drawn  into  the  case  by  subpoena!"  Consider  that  despite 
all  the  precautions  taken  by  Mr.  Hettler,  his  young  associate 
was  subpoenaed,  and  his  pitiful  plight  before  the  Dillingham 
Committee  moved  all  who  saw  and  heard  him  to  pity! 

Herman  H.  Hettler  made  a  fitting  close  to  his  testimony 
before  your  Board.  One  of  the  verified  facts  in  the  so-called 
Hettler  incident  is  that  Mr.  C.  F.  Wiehe.  my  brother-in-law 
and  business  associate,  was  with  me  in  the  Union  League  Club 
that  day.  We  took  luncheon  together,  and  his  signed  slip 
for  the  luncheon  was  submitted  in  evidence.  Your  Board 
admitted  that  both  of  us  were  there.  Mr.  Wiehe  was  with  me 

61 


EDWARD   HINES  TO   THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

when  I  held  that  brief  conversation  with  Hettler.  Mr.  Wiehe 
participated  in  it,  and  so  testified  under  oath.  Now  listen  to 
H.  H.  Hettler  as  he  closed  his  testimony  before  your  Board : 

MR.  HETTLER:  There  was  no  one  present  at  this  in- 
terview on  the  outside  of  the  cigar  stand  with  the  excep- 
tion of  Mr.  Hines.  Any  statements  that  are  made  here 
that  Mr.  Wiehe,  or  any  other  employee  or  associate  of 
the  Edward  Hines  Lumber  Company,  was  within  hearing, 
is  a  misstatement  of  fact." 

Why  is  Hettler  so  strangely  positive  concerning  an  incident 
to  which  he  "attached  no  importance  whatever  ?"  He  describes 
me  as  talking  "in  a  very  loud  tone  of  voice  by  a  descriptive  con- 
versation which  sometimes  possibly  you  may  have  known  people 
to  hold  with  any  other  person  zvhen  they  were  elated  over  a 
situation,"  and  has  the  brazen  insolence  to  insinuate  to  your 
Board  that  Mr.  Wiehe  or  any  of  my  associates  are  liars  if  they 
assert  they  were  "within  hearing"  of  this  vociferous  conversa- 
tion to  which  Hettler  "attached  no  importance!" 

In  this  connection  I  want  to  say  that  while  Mr.  Hettler  (a 
business  rival  who  admits  he  is  unfriendly  to  me)  is  the  only 
person  who  makes  claim  to  having  heard  me  boast  of  partici- 
pation in  the  election  of  Senator  Lorimer,  the  prejudiced  news- 
papers have  seized  that  statement  and  made  it  the  basis  of 
article  after  article  in  which  it  has  been  asserted  in  varying 
form  that  I  repeatedly  boasted  of  having  elected  Senator 
Lorimer.  I  deny  that  I  ever  made  that  claim  to  Hettler  or 
to  anybody. 

SUPPRESSING  THE  TRUTH 

At  the  time  of  the  Helm  Committee  proceeding,  its  attorney, 
Mr.  Healy,  asked  if  our  company  would  be  willing  to  have  an 
examination  of  its  books,  bank  accounts,  and  also  of  my 
personal  records.  We  promptly  agreed  to  this.  Mr.  Healy 
made  that  examination,  and  after  doing  so  told  me  that  he 
found  nothing  to  show  my  connection  with  the  disbursement 
of  any  funds  for  the  election  of  Mr.  Lorimer,  although  Mr. 

62 


EDWARD   HINES  TO   THE   U.    L.   CLUB 

Healy  claimed  that  he  was  not  an  expert.  I  later  told  him  to 
select  any  firm  of  registered  accountants,  and  that  I  would  give 
them  full  freedom  to  examine  all  the  accounts  both  of  myself 
and  my  company,  and  of  the  Banks  where  we  did  business, 
and  offered  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  examination.  But 
Mr.  Healy  said  he  was  personally  satisfied  and  that  he  would 
report  accordingly  to  the  Helm  Committee. 

The  officers  of  my  company  and  myself  believed  that  in  fair- 
ness and  justness  to  us  that  report  should  have  been  made 
public,  and  after  waiting  a  considerable  time  the  Secretary  of 
my  company  sent  the  following  telegram  to  Mr.  Healy : 

J.  J.  Healy,  Attorney  for  Helm  Committee,  Leland 
Hotel,  Springfield,  111.  Understand  Helm  Committee  has 
met  since  your  investigation  of  books  and  checks  issued 
by  Edward  Hines  Lumber  Company,  Edward  Hines  and 
C.  F.  Wiehe,  but  that  you  have  been  entirely  silent  as  to 
your  findings.  In  all  fairness  and  in  justice  to  us  and  our 
associated  companies,  do  you  not  think  that  the  results  of 
your  findings  should  be  reported  to  the  Helm  Committee 
and  made  public?  C.  F.  WIEHE. 

Receiving  no  reply  to  this  telegram,  another  was  sent,  em- 
bodying the  first  and  asking  about  report,  as  follows : 

J.  J.  Healy,  Attorney  for  Helm  Committee,  Leland 
Hotel,  Springfield.  Understand  Helm  Committee  has  met 
since  your  investigation  of  the  books  and  checks  issued 
by  Edward  Hines  Lumber  Company,  Edward  Hines  and 
C.  F.  Wiehe,  but  that  you  have  been  entirely  silent  as  to 
your  findings.  In  all  fairness  and  in  justice  to  us  and  our 
associated  companies,  do  you  not  think  that  the  results  of 
your  findings  should  be  reported  to  the  Helm  Committee 
and  made  public?  I  have  yet  received  no  reply  to  this 
telegram  and  would  be  pleased  to  have  you  advise  me  if 
your  Committee  has  received  this  report. 

C.  F.  WIEHE. 

Telegrams  were  also  sent  to  Chairman  Helm,  urging  that 
in  all  fairness  the  press  should  be  informed  that  our  books  had 
been  examined. 

No  reply  was  made  to  any  of  these  telegrams,  and  the  Com- 

63 


EDWARD   HINES  TO   THE   U.    L.   CLUB 

mittee,  so  far  as  I  have  ever  heard,  never  gave  out  that  informa- 
tion for  publication.  In  its  report  the  Helm  Committee  (312) 
does  say,  with  reference  to  Mr.  Healy's  examination  of  our 
books :  "That  the  said  Hines  and  the  said  Wiehe  exhibited  to 
its  (our)  counsel,  so  far  as  he  could  ascertain,  all  of  the  books, 
papers  and  accounts  of  said  individuals  and  said  Edward  Hines 
Lumber  Company,  together  with  the  books,  papers  and  ac- 
counts of  many  subsidiary  companies,  and  gave  to  your  (our) 
counsel  every  then  present  means  and  opportunity  to  make  any 
and  every  investigation  which  might  then  occur  to  him,  and 
produced  checks,  papers,  book  accounts,  etc.,  when  the  same 
were  asked  for."  But  the  report  failed  to  show  the  further 
very  -important  fact  that  we  had  offered  to  have  qualified  and 
expert  accountants  go  over  all  of  our  matters,  and  we  would 
pay  the  expense  thereof. 

VINDICATING  REPORT  OF  AUDITORS 

When  the  Dillingham  Committee  was  conducting  its  in- 
vestigations it  appointed  one  of  the  most  noted  firms  of  expert 
accountants  in  the  world,  Messrs.  Barrow,  Wade,  Guthrie  and 
Company,  to  make  an  examination,  and  they  did  make  a  most 
thorough  investigation  of  the  accounts  of  the  Edward  Hines 
Lumber  Company,  its  subsidiary  or  controlled  companies,  and 
my  personal  accounts,  and  after  weeks  of  investigation,  re- 
ported November  I,  1911,  to  the  Honorable  W.  P.  Dillingham, 
U.  S.  Senate  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections,  amongst 
other  things  as  follows : 

I  hand  you  herewith  my  report  on  the  following  matters 
which  I  investigated  under  instructions  received,  viz. :  (a) 
Accounts  of  the  Edward  Hines  Lumber  Company  and  its 
subsidiary  or  controlled  companies,  including  the  personal 
accounts  of  Mr.  Edward  Hines.  (b)  Certain  personal 
records  of  Mr.  Edward  Hines.  The  purpose  of  the  exam- 
ination of  the  books  of  the  Hines  Lumber  Company  was 
to  determine,  if  possible,  what  part,  if  any,  this  Company 
had  in  the  collection  or  disbursement  of  the  fund  alleged 
to  have  been  raised  in  connection  with  the  election  of  Mr. 
William  Lorimer  to  the  U.  S.  Senate  in  May,  1909. 

In  addition  to  the  accounts  of  the  Edward  Hines  Lum- 

64 


EDWARD   HINES   TO   THE   U.    L.   CLUB 

her  Company  proper,  my  examination  embraced  the  ac- 
counts of  the  following",  branches  and  companies  owned  or 
controlled  by  it,  viz. : 

Edward  Hines  Lumber  Company,  Vessel  Department. 

Edward  Hines  Lumber  Company,  Lumberman's  Mill  Co. 

Edward  Hines  Lumber  Company,  Wood  Street  Planing 
Mill. 

Edward  Hines  Lumber  Company,  Evanston  Branch. 

Edward  Hines  Lumber  Company,  Glen  View  Branch. 

Edward  Hines  Lumber  Company,  Rose  Hill  Branch. 

Edward  Hines  Lumber  Company  Cusson  Logging  Opera- 
tions. 

North  Wisconsin  Lumber  &  Manufacturing  Company. 

Hayward  Mercantile  Company. 

First  National  Bank,  Hayward,  Wisconsin. 

Mason  State  Bank,  Mason,  Wisconsin. 

White  River  Lumber  Company. 

Iron  River  Lumber  Company. 

Virginia  &  Rainy  Lake  Company. 

I  was  also  granted  access  to  the  personal  books  of  Mr. 
Edward  Hines  for  the  year  ending  Dec.  31,  1909.  As  a 
result  of  my  examination  of  the  books  of  the  Edward 
Hines  Lumber  Company  and  the  personal  books  of  Mr. 
Edward  Hines  for  the  entire  year  ending  Dec.  31,  1909, 
and  of  the  books  of  the  various  branches  and  subsidiary 
or  controlled  companies  (as  hereinbefore  enumerated) 
for  the  nine  months  from  April  I,  1909  to  Dec.  31,  1909, 
I  am  able  to  report  as  follows : 

(a)  That  there  was  no  evidence  of  the  Edward  Hines 
Lumber  Company  or  any  of  its  subsidiary  or  controlled 
companies  having  received  or  disbursed  any  moneys  in 
connection  with  the  election  of  Mr.  William  Lorimer  on 
May  26,  1909,  to  the  U.  S.  Senate  from  the  State  of  Illi- 
nois. 

(b)  That  there  was  no  evidence  of  Mr.  Hines  as  an 
individual  having  received  or  disbursed  any  moneys  in 
connection  with  the  aforesaid  election. 

In  order  to  ascertain  whether  or  not  Mr.  Hines  might 
have  negotiated  a  loan  from  one  or  other  of  the  banks  in 
Chicago  with  which  he  was  connected  or  with  which  he 
had  business  relations,  I  visited  the  following  banks  and 
Trust  Companies:  Continental  National  Bank,  Hibernian 

65 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

Banking  Association,  Fort  Dearborn  National  Bank, 
Northern  Trust  Company,  Corn  Exchange  National  Bank, 
Metropolitan  Trust  &  Savings  Bank.  At  each  of  these 
places  I  examined  their  record  of  notes  discounted  during 
the  last  week  of  May,  1909  and  the  first  part  of  June, 
1909.  I  am  able  to  report,  therefore,  that  at  none  of  these 
banks  in  the  period  under  review  did  Mr.  Hines  discount 

any  note  or  notes,  either  as  drawer  or  endorser 

Yours  very  truly, 

ALFRED  A.  RITCHIE. 

The  same  firm  of  auditors  also  made  an  exhaustive  exam- 
ination of  the  books  of  Edward  Tilden  and  made  a  report  de- 
claring that  his  books  and  records  contained  no  indication  that 
that  he  had  been  concerned  in  the  plot  outlined  in  Funk's  testi- 
mony. The  report  of  the  auditors  on  Mr.  Tilden's  books  and 
records  concluded  as  follows : 

"That  Mr.  Tilden  would  not  co-mingle  trust  moneys 
with  his  own  funds  .  .  .  That,  from  the  records  ex- 
amined, and  on  the  assumption  of  the  correctness  of  the 
above  theory,  there  was  no  evidence  that  Mr.  Tilden  had 
been  custodian  of  the  fund  alleged  to  have  been  raised  in 
connection  with  the  election  of  Mr.  William  Lorimer  to 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States  from  the  State  of  Illinois." 

It  would  be  impossible  to  conduct  a  more  thorough  exam- 
ination than  that  given  to  my  books  and  records.  You  will 
recall  that  the  testimony  given  in  Washington  fully  developed 
the  fact  that  Senator  Lorimer  was  not  an  active  candidate  until 
May,  1909.  I  gave  the  auditors  access  of  all  books  and  records 
back  to  April,  at  which  time  I  am  on  record  as  having  been 
interested  in  the  candidacy  of  candidates  other  than  Mr.  Lori- 
mer. 

Funk  quotes  me  as  saying  to  him  that  when  the  time  came  I 
had  to  raise  the  money  quickly.  He  had  me  down  in  Spring- 
field a  few  days  before  the  election,  hurriedly  collecting  or 
openly  advancing  $100,000.  I  actually  was  in  Washington, 
and  the  report  of  the  auditors  disposes  of  the  remaining  frag- 
ments of  Funk's  fiction. 

The  testimony  introduced  before  your  Board  relative  to  the 

66 


EDWARD   HINES  TO   THE   U.    L.   CLUB 

interview  of  May  27,  1909,  did  not  differ  widely  from  that 
presented  under  oath  before  the  Dillingham  Committee.  Funk 
purposely  omitted  from  his  testimony  those  details  which 
caused  him  trouble  when  under  oath  in  Washington,  but  it  was 
easy  to  confront  him  with  his  sworn  statements  made  in 
Springfield  and  in  Washington,  and  thus  to  exhibit  his  lack 
of  candor  as  a  witness. 

In  a  court  of  law  I  would  not  have  been  compelled  to  set  up 
a  defense.  There  was  nothing  to  defend.  Funk  did  not  have 
a  witness,  a  scrap  of  paper,  an  authenticated  date,  nor  could 
his  attorney  point  to  one  fact  which  indicated  a  possibility  that 
I  was  or  could  have  been  guilty  of  the  charge  made  by  Clarence 
S.  Funk. 

FUNK'S  OTHER  CLAIM 

It  will  not  be  surprising  if  you  find  it  impossible  to  believe 
that  the  things  about  to  be  recorded  actually  took  place  within 
the  precincts  of  the  Union  League  Club.  I  will  admit  that  they 
sound  impossible.  But  this  testimony  and  these  incidents  do 
not  rest  on  my  word.  They  are  taken  from  the  official  record 
of  my  trial  before  your  Board  of  Directors.  That  record  was 
compiled  by  them.  It  is  a  transcript  of  notes  taken  by  a  re- 
porter employed  by  them.  That  record  was  yielded  to  me 
only  after  every  effort  had  been  made  to  impose  secrecy  on  me, 
and  only  after  my  attorney  had  taken  steps  to  secure  for  me  my 
legal  rights. 

On  January  17,  1911,  the  State  Senate  of  Illinois  appointed 
a  special  investigating  committee  to  inquire  into  certain  new 
charges  involving  the  right  of  Senator  Lorimer  to  his  seat  in 
Washington.  This  body  is  known  as  the  Helm  Committee.  It 
met  and  organized  in  Springfield  on  February  24,  1911.  It  held 
a  short  session  on  March  2  and  did  not  meet  again  until  March 
28,  when  I  testified  before  it.  I  gave  the  substance  of  my  slight 
connection  with  the  election  of  Senator  Lorimer,  the  confer- 
ences with  Senators  Aldrich  and  Penrose,  and  my  trip  to  Chi- 
cago with  the  message  I  was  authorized  to  convey  to  Governor 
Deneen.  When  questioned  by  counsel  of  the  Helm  Committee, 

67 


EDWARD   HhNES  TO   THE    U.    L.    CLUB 

I  denied  that  I  had  any  knowledge  of  any  fund  used  in  secur- 
ing the  election  of  Senator  Lorimer. 

I  assumed  that  the  Committee  desired  only  to  know  the  pur- 
port of  my  conferences  in  Washington  and  my  attempt  to 
convey  the  message  to  Governor  Deneen.  I  disliked  to  dis- 
close these  confidential  political  matters,  but  did  so  truthfully 
and  frankly,  and  had  every  reason  to  assume  that  this  ended 
my  connection  with  the  matter. 

The  Helm  Committee  was  at  that  time,  of  course,  in  posses- 
sion of  the  allegations  made  by  Clarence  S.  Funk,  as  told  by 
him  to  Mr.  H.  H.  Kohlsaat.  The  latter  was  called  before  the 
Committee  on  March  29,  1911,  and  questioned  in  detail  about 
his  authority  for  the  charges  made  in  a  Chicago  Record-Herald 
editorial  of  February  15,  1911,  which  editorial  read  as  fol- 
lows: 

BAILEY'S  FALLACY— WITH  APPLICATIONS 

Senator  Bailey  has  almost  convinced  himself  that  there 
was  no  corruption  at  all  in  the  Illinois  Legislature  which 
sent  Lorimer  to  the  Senate.  His  grand  "forgery"  climax 
was  cruelly  spoiled,  but  undaunted  he  asserted  that  there 
was  little  except  suspicion  and  talk  in  the  Lorimer  and 
"jack-pot"  scandals.  Generalizing,  he  contends  that  there 
is  much  less  corruption  and  graft  in  the  country  than  many 
people,  misled  by  muckrakers,  have  been  led  to  believe. 

Now,  this  general  statement  may  be  true  without  lend- 
ing any  force  whatever  to  Bailey's  view  of  concrete  cases. 
Do  we  know  all  that  we  might  about  the  Illinois  jackpot? 
Do  we  know  all  there  is  to  know  concerning  the  $100,000 
fund  which  was  raised  to  pay  for  Lorimer  votes  ?  Do  we 
know  the  true  inwardness  of  the  Browne,  Erbstein,  Kelley 
trials? 

In  some  instances  there  is  undoubtedly  more  cry  than 
there  is  wool  in  muckraking  affairs.  In  others,  like  the 
Albany  Allds-Conger  scandal,  the  Illinois  Lorimer  affair 
and  jackpot,  the  facts  are  much  graver  than  the  average 
voter  in  certain  districts  realizes,  or  men  like  Browne, 
Broderick,  and  Wilson  would  never  have  been  re-elected. 
If  all  the  facts  were  known  about  Springfield  and  Albany 
graft  a  good  many  men  would  be  moving  penitentiary- 
ward.  In  cases  of  bribery,  perjury,  looting  of  public 
treasuries,  it  is  not  easy  to  get  the  "parties"  to  talk,  for 

68 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE  U.   L.   CLUB 

obvious  reasons.  What  loose  writers  here  and  there  say 
about  unspecified  graft  has  no  bearing  on  concrete  cases. 
In  such  cases  the  question  is  one  of  evidence — its  quantity 
and  quality — and  of  inference,  probability  or  reasonable 
interpretation. 

This  editorial  set  in  motion  a  momentous  series  of  events.  It 
was  the  direct  cause  which  precipitated  the  second  Lorimer 
investigation.  It  split  the  Republican  Party  in  Illinois  into 
warring  factions.  It  has  occupied  the  attention  of  the  United 
States  Senate  for  nearly  a  year,  and  brought  about  an  investi- 
gation with  the  most  voluminous  record  in  the  history  of 
American  legislation. 

CAN  YOU  BELIEVE  THIS? 

That  editorial  of  February  15,  1911,  was  the  direct  cause  of 
forcing  Clarence  S.  Funk  to  take  the  stand  before  the  Helm 
Committee  and  to  tell  the  false  story  implicating  me.  Funk 
was  the  man  who,  according  to  his  own  testimony,  gave  Mr. 
Kohlsaat  the  data  on  which  that  editorial  was  based,  and  yet, 
mark  this: 

Clarence  S.  Funk  declared  to  the  Board  of  Managers  that 
he  never  saw  or  read  that  famous  editorial  until  it  was  called 
to  his  attention  by  his  attorney,  Frank  Loesch,  which  was  on 
January  13,  1912,  at  which  time  my  trial  before  the  Union 
League  Club  was  nearly  ended. 

To  believe  this  statement  is  the  supreme  test  of  credulity. 
Funk  says  that  he  did  not  see  it  after  his  friend  Kohlsaat 
wrote  it.  He  says  he  did  not  see  it  when  it  had  forced  him  to 
go  to  Springfield  where  he  told  his  astounding  story.  He  says 
he  did  not  see  it  when  it  was  called  to  his  attention  time  and 
time  again  when  he  was  on  the  witness  stand  and  under  oath 
before  the  Dillingham  Committee  in  Washington.  He  says  he 
did  not  take  the  trouble  to  read  it  during  all  the  months  that 
intervened  before  I  was  confronted  with  charges  in  the  Union 
League  Club.  Do  you  believe  that  ?  It  appears  on  the  records 
of  your  Club. 

Mr.  Kohlsaat  disclosed  to  the  Helm  Committee  the  name  of 

69 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

his  informant — and  named  Clarence  S.  Funk  as  the  man  re- 
sponsible for  the  Record-Herald  editorial  of  February  15,  1911. 
Funk  appeared  before  the  Helm  Committee  on  April  5.  That 
portion  of  his  tale  relative  to  our  interview  in  the  Union 
League  Club  has  already  been  given.  I  shall  now  give  in  full 
his  version  of  the  alleged  second  interview. 

Bear  in  mind  that  Funk  gave  this  testimony  on  April  5,  and 
that  he  was  questioned  about  an  editorial  that  appeared  on 
February  15,  and  that  EXACTLY  SEVEN  WEEKS  HAD 
ELAPSED !  Bear  in  mind  that  it  was  not  SEVEN  MONTHS, 
or  SEVENTEEN  MONTHS,  or  TWO  YEARS,  but  a  tri- 
fling matter  of  forty-nine  days.  Keep  this  fact  in  your  mind. 
I  shall  refer  back  to  this  page  once  in  a  while  when  I  come 
to  analyze  some  of  Funk's  conflicting  stories,  and  my  object  will 
be  to  call  pointed  attention  to  the  fact  that  this  is  the  story  that 
Clarence  S.  Funk  told  when  he  was  under  oath,  when  he  was 
subject  to  the  penalties  of  perjury,  when  the  topic  presumably 
was  fresh  in  his  mind,  when  he  occupied  the  center  of  the  stage 
with  the  lime-light  of  publicity  turned  on  him. 

I  will  show  you  later  what  Clarence  S.  Funk  said  when  he 
was  my  accusing  witness  before  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the 
Union  League  Club ;  when  he  was  not  under  oath ;  when  the  lie 
he  told  in  Springfield  had  been  shattered  and  torn  beyond 
recognition  by  unanswerable  proof  and  testimony.  I  will  show 
you  what  he  then  said  before  a  friendly  court;  when  my  dis- 
grace was  the  price  of  his  safety  or  his  conniving,  and  when 
he  imagined  that  no  word  of  what  he  then  said  would  be  per- 
mitted to  penetrate  the  walls  within  which  I  was  unfairly  tried 
and  unjustly  condemned. 

FUNK'S  FALSE  TESTIMONY 

Here  is  the  testimony  in  full  given  by  Clarence  S.  Funk  on 
April  5,  1911,  before  the  Helm  Committee  and  relative  to  the 
alleged  second  interview  between  himself  and  me — an  interview 
which  never  occurred — and  Funk  cannot  escape  the  responsi- 
bility which  attaches  to  this  testimony : 

QUESTION  :     You  remember,  do  you  not,  Mr.  Funk,  the 

70 


EDWARD  H1NES  TO  THE  U.   L.   CLUB 

publication  of  an  editorial  in  the  Chicago  Record-Herald 
on  or  about  the  month  of  February,  1911,  in  which  there 
was  specific  reference  to  a  $100,000  corruption  fund? 

MR.  FUNK:  I  don't  think  I  saw  the  editorial  at  that 
time. 

QUESTION  :  Well,  did  anyone  talk  with  you,  or  did 
anyone  see  you  in  reference  to  that  editorial,  or  about  that 
time,  in  reference  to  this  conversation  you  had  with  Mr. 
Hines  at  the  Union  League  Club  ? 

MR.  FUNK  :  Do  you  mean  anybody  besides  Mr.  Kohl- 
saat?  I  saw  Mr.  Kohlsaat. 

QUESTION  :     Did  you  see  Mr.  Hines  about  that  time  ? 

MR.  FUNK  :  Yes ;  Mr.  Hines  came  to  my  office  in  a  day 
or  two,  or  a  short  time ;  it  may  have  been  more  than  a  day 
or  two,  but  a  short  time  after  that  editorial  appeared. 

QUESTION  :  What  conversation  did  you  have  with  him 
upon  that  occasion  ? 

MR.  FUNK  :  Well,  he  was  very  much  disturbed  at  that 
time,  and  undertook  to  refresh  my  memory  as  to  what  our 
conversation  had  been. 

QUESTION  :     What  did  he  say  ? 

MR.  FUNK  :  Well,  I  cannot  repeat  his  language  exactly, 
but  in  substance  it  was  to  the  effect  that  his  former  con- 
versation with  me  had  been  merely  a  general  discussion 
of  the  situation  down  there,  and  that  he  had  not  asked  me 
for  any  money,  and  that  he  did  not  know  anything  about 
any  money  having  been  raised. 

QUESTION  :  Well,  had  you  any  prior  conversation  with 
him  in  which  you  accused  him  of  having  raised  any  money? 
money  ? 

MR.  FUNK  :     No. 

QUESTION  :  Or  being  concerned  with  any  fund  of  that 
sort? 

MR.  FUNK:    No. 

QUESTION  :  You  had  not  communicated  with  him  in  any 
way  about  that  time? 

MR.  FUNK  :     No,  sir. 

QUESTION  :  And  did  he  pretend  to  have  any  other  busi- 
ness or  other  thing  to  discuss  with  you  when  he  came  to 
your  office  in  February,  1911? 

MR.  FUNK:     No. 

QUESTION  :  So  you  had  never  discussed  with  him  the 
matter  of  the  existence  of  that  corruption  fund  after  the 
Union  League  Club  meeting,  which  occurred  in  May  or 

71 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE  U.   L.   CLUB 

June,  1909,  until  about  the  time  of  the  publication  in  the 
Record-Herald,  which  was  some  time  in  February,  1911? 

MR.  FUNK  :    No. 

QUESTION:  How  long  did  this  second  conversation 
with  Mr.  Hines  at  your  office  last? 

MR.  FUNK  :     Oh,  not  over  five  minutes. 

QUESTION  :  Did  he  ask  you  at  that  time  whether  you 
had  given  anyone  information  with  reference  to  the  first 
conversation  ? 

MR.  FUNK:    No.   (Helm  71) 

A  child  can  understand  the  plain  purport  of  that  testimony. 
Funk  was  given  clearly  to  understand  that  the  editorial  was 
published  in  February,  1911.  He  says  he  had  conferred  with 
Mr.  McCormick  about  his  duty  to  Kohlsaat,  and  here  he  was 
in  Springfield  telling  under  oath  of  an  occurrence  alleged  to 
have  taken  place  not  more  than  seven  weeks  before.  He  now 
says  before  the  Union  League  Club  that  he  had  not  then  read 
the  famous  editorial,  and  that  TWO  YEARS  AND  NINE 
MONTHS  PASSED  BEFORE  HE  FINALLY  DID  READ 
IT.  Do  you  think  that  possible  ? 

FUNK  BEFORE  THE  DILLINGHAM  COMMITTEE 

On  June  26,  1911,  Clarence  S.  Funk  testified  under  oath  be- 
fore the  Dillingham  Committee.  This  was  less  than  four  and 
one-half  months  after  the  publication  of  the  Record-Herald 
editorial  of  February  15,  1911.  During  the  fourteen  weeks 
which  had  elapsed  since  his  appearance  before  the  Helm  Com- 
mittee, Funk  was  in  a  position  to  mass  such  proof  as  he  had  to 
confirm  the  story  then  told  by  him.  Funk  was  fully  aware  that 
he  was  the  central  figure  in  the  greatest  political  scandal  ever 
exploited  in  the  United  States.  He  was  well  aware  that  his 
testimony  had  instigated  the  second  Lorimer  investigation,  and 
he  realized  that  the  burden  of  proving  the  charge  against  me 
was  on  him. 

Funk  was  the  star  witness  for  the  prosecution.  It  may  be 
assumed  that  the  attorneys  for  the  prosecution  made  every 
move  which  legal  skill  could  suggest  to  bolster  the  Funk  evi- 
dence. It  may  confidently  be  assumed  that  every  effort  was 

72 


EDWARD  MINES  TO  THE  U.   L.   CLUB 

made  to  secure  witnesses  and  documentary  proof  to  add  weight 
to  the  allegations  made  by  Funk.  We  have  a  right  to  believe 
that  repeated  conferences  were  held  on  this  matter,  that  every 
detail  was  carefully  considered  and  that  a  plan  of  campaign 
was  mapped  out. 

Funk  knew,  and  all  concerned  knew  that  he  would  be  sub- 
jected to  a  thorough  cross-examination  before  the  Dillingham 
Committee.  It  was  recognized  that  Funk's  testimony  before 
the  Helm  Committee  must  stand  as  the  foundation  of  the  charge 
against  me,  and  it  was  known  that  if  he  wandered  far  from 
his  Helm  testimony  any  new  story  would  fall  of  its  own  weight. 
Why?  Because  the  Helm  testimony  was  given  under  oath 
when  the  subject  was  fresh  in  his  mind;  because  it  was  the 
testimony  on  which  was  based  the  second  Lorimer  investi- 
gation. 

Funk's  story  before  the  Dillingham  Committee  differed  in 
certain  details  from  that  given  before  the  Helm  Committee, 
but  THE  SUBSTANCE  OF  HIS  TESTIMONY  WAS  THE 
SAME.  It  had  to  be.  He  dared  not  change  it.  The  eyes  of 
the  nation  were  on  him.  Here  is  the  essence  of  his  testimony 
relative  to  the  time  of  the  alleged  second  interview  between 
himself  and  me — an  interview  which  never  occurred : 

MR.  MARBLE:  Did  you  have  any  further  conversation 
with  Mr.  Hines  relative  to  the  first  conversation? 

MR.  FUNK:  Yes;  I  had  a  second  conversation  with 
him. 

MR.  MARBLE:    When? 

MR.  FUNK  :  As  near  as  I  can  fix  it,  it  was  a  few  days 
after  the  publication  of  the  Record-Herald  editorial.  It 
may  have  been  more  than  a  few  days.  I  cannot  say  defin- 
itely; but  it  was  after  the  Record-Herald  editorial  was 
published. 

MR.  MARBLE:  What  do  you  mean  by  the  Record- 
Herald  editorial  ? 

MR.  FUNK  :  The  one  that  brought  Kohlsaat  to  Spring- 
field ;  the  editorial  in  which  he  said  that  $100,000  had  been 
used.  (Dill.  557) 

I  take  it  that  this  is  plain  testimony.    You  cannot  escape  its 

73 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE  U.   L.   CLUB 

meaning.  It  was  an  unequivocal  declaration  that  the  second 
alleged  conversation  took  place  shortly  after  February  15,  1911. 
Funk  pretended  not  to  know  the  exact  date  of  the  editorial. 
He  was  probably  the  only  man  present  who  did  not  know  the 
date — if  he  really  did  not  know  it.  However,  his  own  counsel 
pinned  him  to  the  date  a  minute  later: 

MR.  MARBLE:  Assuming  that  the  Record-Herald  edi- 
torial was  printed  on  the  I5th  of  February,  1911,  when 
would  you  say  that  conversation  was  held  ? 

MR.  FUNK  :    I  think  it  was  a  short  time  after  that. 

This  and  other  testimony  by  Funk,  Kohlsaat  and  others 
positively  fixed  February  15,  1911,  as  the  approximate  date  on 
which  the  second  conversation  was  alleged  to  have  been  held. 
I  shall  consider  that  matter  later  in  detail.  The  point  I  wish 
now  to  emphasize  is  that  the  Dillingham  Committee  was  given 
to  understand  that  this  was  the  date.  No  other  date  was  even 
hinted  at.  The  Dillingham  Committee  and  the  public  has  not 
had  the  slightest  official  information  that  there  was  any  other 
date  suggested  or  offered  for  consideration. 

EXPOSURE  OF  FUNK'S  FALSEHOOD 

Despite  the  fact  that  this  accusation  rested  solely  on  the  word 
of  Funk,  I  was  in  duty  bound  to  defend  myself  against  his  im- 
putation. I  did  so.  I  placed  before  the  Dillingham  Committee 
an  overwhelming  mass  of  documentary  and  oral  evidence  which 
proved  beyond  the  shadow  of  a  doubt  that  7  was  not  in  Chicago 
from  February  7,  1911  to  March  5,  1911,  and  that  during  this 
period  I  could  not  have  held  in  Chicago  the  interview  charged 
by  Clarence  S.  Funk. 

The  Chicago  newspapers  suppressed  all  mention  of  this  abso- 
lute repudiation  of  Funk's  charge,  but  the  Dillingham  Com- 
mittee knew  that  it  was  true,  Funk's  lawyers  realized  that  he 
was  a  discredited  witness,  and  Funk  knew  that  he  had  been  de- 
tected in  an  open  falsehood. 

It  was  not  my  fault  that  the  Chicago  newspapers  suppressed 
the  truth  which  vindicated  me.  It  was  not  my  fault  that  these 
press  tactics  prevented  my  fellow  members  in  the  Union  League 

74 


EDWARD   HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

Club  from  knowing  that  my  word  had  been  affirmed  and  that  of 
Funk  repudiated.  I  assumed  that  the  Board  of  Directors 
would  be  governed  by  the  facts  when  they  learned  them.  They 
were  not  so  governed. 

I  was  curious  to  know  what  course  Funk  would  pursue  be- 
fore the  Board  of  Directors  when  he  came  to  fix  a  date  for  the 
alleged  second  interview.  It  was  intimated  to  me  that  Funk's 
lawyers  would  not  permit  him  to  again  confront  the  unassail- 
able proof  in  my  possession  that  I  was  not  in  Chicago  on  or 
shortly  after  February  15,  1911.  There  seemed  to  me  no  way 
of  escape  for  my  false  accuser,  but  I  was  unprepared  for  the 
astounding  effort  made  by  him  in  his  original  testimony  before 
the  Board.  Funk  thus  testified  before  the  Club  judges  who 
have  seen  fit  to  accept  his  word  and  to  reject  mine: 

FUNK'S  ASTOUNDING  TESTIMONY 

(The  first  two  questions  in  the  following  testimony  refer  to 
the  Union  League  Club  conversation  between  Funk  and  my- 
self, held  on  May  27,  1909,  and  are  inserted  here  to  give  the 
proper  relevancy  to  Funk's  reply  to  the  third  question.) 

QUESTION  :     You  ended  the  conversation  right  there  ? 

MR.  FUNK:     Yes,  sir. 

QUESTION:     By  getting  up  and  leaving  him,  did  you? 

MR.  FUNK:     Yes,  sir. 

QUESTION:  But  you  had  no  other  conversation  with 
him  on  that  same  subject  after  that;  with  Mr.  Hines,  I 
mean? 

MR.  FUNK:  Yes.  He  came  to  my  office  A  FEW 
MONTHS  AFTERWARDS,  evidently  considerably  at 
that  time  agitated ;  he  came  in  one  morning  just  before — 
just  as  I  was  going  into  a  director's  meeting,  or  some  con- 
ference which  was  quite  important  and  which  I  could  not 
delay,  and  undertook  to  talk  to  me  about  that  conversation 
and  to  refresh  my  memory  on  the  suggestions  in  it.  I 
talked  to  him  only  a  minute.  I  told  him  I  thought  I  re- 
membered it,  and  excused  myself  and  went  into  my  meet- 
ing. 

QUESTION  :  That  is,  after  the  meeting  at  the  Union 
League  Club? 

MR.  FUNK:  I  think  IT  WAS  FOUR  OR  FIVE 
MONTHS  AFTER. 

75 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE  U.   L.   CLUB 

QUESTION:     How  long  ago,  can  you  fix  it? 

MR.  FUNK:    No,  I  cannot  fix  it  definitely.   (U.  L.  21) 

This  is  the  testimony  of  Clarence  S.  Funk  as  it  appears 
on  the  official  records  of  the  Union  League  Club.  I  offer  it 
for  your  consideration.  The  Senate  of  the  United  States  is 
as  yet  officially  unaware  that  Clarence  S.  Funk  thus  brazenly 
repudiated  his  sworn  testimony  given  before  the  Dillingham 
Committee  on  June  26,  1911.  Funk  first  made  this  statement 
to  your  Board  of  Directors  at  a  secret  session  held  on  Novem- 
ber 13,  1911.  I  was  not  permitted  to  be  present  or  to  be  repre- 
sented by  counsel  when  Funk  thus  changed  his  testimony. 

It  was  not  until  January  2,  1912,  that  I  appeared  before  your 
Board  and  heard  read  the  new  version  of  Funk's  testimony 
against  which  it  was  demanded  that  I  prove  my  innocence. 
Funk  was  also  present.  His  secretly  given  testimony  of  No- 
vember 13  was  slowly  read  to  him.  He  made  a  few  slight 
corrections.  The  following  then  ensued: 

A  MEMBER  :  Mr.  Funk,  if  you  have  any  corrections  to 
make  in  this  statement  or  anything  to  add  to  it,  you  are  at 
liberty  to  do  so  now. 

MR.  FUNK:  THAT  STATEMENT  IS  SUBSTAN- 
TIALLY CORRECT.  There  appears  to  be  a  few  gram- 
matical errors  that  are  of  no  consequence.  The  state- 
ment is  substantially  as  I  made  it. 

A  MEMBER:     You  have  nothing  to  add  to  it? 

MR.  FUNK  :  No,  sir.   (U.  L.  24) 

That  "substantially  correct"  and  complete  statement  will  be 
analyzed  fully  later.  I  now  desire  to  direct  your  attention  to 
the  fact  that  Clarence  S.  Funk  came  before  your  Board  of 
Directors  on  November  13,  1911,  and  again  on  January  2, 
1912,  and  OPENLY  REPUDIATED  HIS  SWORN  TES- 
TIMONY BEFORE  THE  HELM  COMMITTEE  IN 
SPRINGFIELD,  GIVEN  ON  APRIL  5,  1911,  AND  ALSO 
HIS  SWORN  TESTIMONY  GIVEN  BEFORE  THE 
DILLINGHAM  COMMITTEE  ON  JUNE  26,  1911. 


76 


EDWARD   HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

A  "MISTAKE"  OF  SIXTEEN  MONTHS 

Before  both  of  these  committees,  with  the  subject  fresh  in 
his  mind,  with  full  realization  of  the  responsibility  which  was 
his  in  making  a  criminal  charge  against  me,  CLARENCE  S. 
FUNK  TOOK  OATH  THAT  I  CAME  TO  HIS  OFFICE 
SHORTLY  AFTER  AN  EDITORIAL  PUBLISHED  IN 
THE  CHICAGO  RECORD-HERALD  IN  FEBRUARY, 
1911,  OR  ABOUT  SEVEN  WEEKS  BEFORE  HE  MADE 
HIS  PUBLIC  CHARGE  BEFORE  THE  HELM  COM- 
MITTEE. 

BEFORE  THE  BOARD  OF  DIRECTORS  OF  THE 
UNION  LEAGUE  CLUB  HE  MADE  NO  MENTION  OF 
ANY  EDITORIAL.  WHEN  ASKED  THE  DATE  OF 
THE  ALLEGED  SECOND  CONVERSATION,  HE  STAT- 
ED IT  AS  "FOUR  OR  FIVE  MONTHS"  AFTER  THE 
UNION  LEAGUE  CLUB  INTERVIEW,  WHICH  ESTAB- 
LISHED A  NEW  FUNK  DATE  IN  SEPTEMBER  OR 
OCTOBER,  1909,  IN  PLACE  OF  FEBRUARY,  1911,  A 
SHIFT  OF  DATES  OF  NOT  LESS  THAN  SIXTEEN 
MONTHS! 

And  I  was  expelled  from  the  Union  League  Club  on  the  tes- 
timony of  Charles  S.  Funk!  Sixteen  months  is  a  mere  detail, 
a  trifling  matter,  to  Funk.  I  was  compelled  to  account  for 
every  hour  of  the  day  for  a  period  of  months.  I  did  so,  and 
was  then  expelled  on  the  word  of  a  man  who  lacks  either 
memory  or  morals. 

Select  your  own  excuse  for  Funk,  and  then  judge  this  action 
of  your  Board.  Assume,  if  you  will,  that  Funk  made  an  hon- 
est mistake  in  setting  this  astounding  new  date.  Would  you 
like  to  be  expelled  from  the  Union  League  Club  on  the  word  of 
a  man  who  makes  a  "mistake"  of  SIXTEEN  MONTHS  in 
a  vital  date?  Assume,  if  you  will,  that  Funk  has  no  memory 
for  dates.  How  comes  he  to  be  general  manager  of  a  great 
corporation?  How  would  you  like  to  be  placed  at  the  mercy 
of  a  man  afflicted  with  a  memory  like  that  ? 

You  will  not  give  Clarence  S.  Funk  the  benefit  of  any  such 
assumptions  when  you  have  finished  these  pages.  You  will 

77 


EDWARD  MINES  TO  THE   U.   L.  CLUB 

know  why  the  Dillingham  Committee  gave  me  an  unqualified 
vindication,  and  you  will  understand  why  that  Committee  de- 
clined to  accept  the  impossible  assertions  made  under  oath 
by  Funk. 

Why  did  Funk  fix  that  new  date?  Why  did  he  place  the 
time  of  the  alleged  second  interview  in  September  or  Oc- 
tober, 1909,  instead  of  February,  1911.  You  may  be  sure  he 
had  a  reason,  and  here  it  is : 

When  I  was  called  before  the  Dillingham  Committee  I 
showed  by  a  mass  of  evidence,  overwhelming  and  conclusive, 
that  I  was  not  in  Chicago  at  or  near  the  time  of  the  editorial 
of  February  15,  1911 ;  that  I  was  not  in  Chicago  from  the  7th 
of  February,  1911,  to  the  5th  of  March,  1911.  When  Funk 
made  his  various  statements  before  the  Helm  and  Dillingham 
Committees  he  did  not  know  my  whereabouts  during  the  period 
in  question,  but  apparently  assumed  that  I  was  in  Chicago  on 
or  shortly  after  the  I5th  of  February,  1911. 

It  was  not  until  I  took  the  witness  stand  in  Washington  and 
proved  absolutely  that  I  was  not  in  Chicago  at  any  time  dur- 
ing that  period  that  it  dawned  on  Funk  and  his  attorneys  that 
they  were  confronted  by  facts  which  could  not  be  ignored. 

FUNK  SHIFTS 

Now  see  what  follows:  Did  Funk  go  before  the  Dilling- 
ham Committee  and  explain  that  he  had  made  a  "mistake"  in 
setting  that  date  ?  Not  at  all !  He  permits  his  false  testimony 
to  stand  on  the  Dillingham  Committee  records  without  a  word 
changed.  It  was  not  until  the  I3th  of  November,  1911,  that 
Funk  gives  a  new  version  of  his  tale  and  sets  a  new  date  for  the 
alleged  second  interview.  He  does  this  in  a  private  hearing 
before  your  Board  of  Directors.  He  does  it  in  full  knowledge 
of  the  fact  that  he  cannot  stand  on  the  testimony  he  gave  un- 
der oath  in  Washington.  He  seems  to  have  had  confidence  that 
any  version  or  any  date  would  be  accepted  by  your  Board,  and 
that  his  direct  impeachment  in  Washingon  would  be  ignored 
by  those  who  had  decreed  in  advance  a  verdict  of  expulsion 
against  me. 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

Deliberately  ignoring  his  sworn  testimony  in  Washington 
which  was  accepted  as  fixing  the  date  of  the  second  alleged 
interview  after  an  interval  of  approximately  twenty-one 
months  after  the  first  or  Union  League  Club  interview,  Funk 
now  coolly  informed  your  Board  that  it  was  "a  few  months 
after,"  and  finally  that  it  was  "four  or  five  months  after." 

Funk's  motive  was  plain.  It  was  his  purpose  to  get  clear 
away  from  the  date  which  he  had  given  under  oath,  the  date 
fixed  by  the  Record-Herald  editorial  of  February  15,  1911,  and 
to  fix  a  new  date  back  to  some  indefinite  time  in  the  fall  of 
1909,  a  date  not  associated  with  any  editorial,  in  the  hope  that 
I  might  not  be  able  to  meet  the  new  and  vague  period. 

Funk  had  had  months  in  which  to  map  out  his  plan  of  pro- 
cedure before  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Union  League 
Club.  You  can  judge  as  well  as  I  whether  he  acted  on  his 
own  initiative  or  if  he  accepted  the  advice  of  others.  The  reck- 
lessness of  the  expedient  adopted  to  avoid  impeachment  is  ex- 
ceeded only  by  its  stupidity.  The  new  date  fixed  by  Funk  was 
one  prior  to  the  filing  of  any  charges  against  Senator  Lorimer, 
and  in  a  period  when  there  was  nothing  to  indicate  that  he 
would  be  compelled  to  fight  to  retain  his  seat.  Funk  must 
have  known  that.  His  sole  desire  seems  to  have  been  to  get  as 
far  away  as  possible  from  the  date  he  had  fixed  under  oath, 
and  he  seemingly  relied  on  the  credulity  or  bias  of  the  Board 
to  accept  without  question  any  statement  he  cared  or  dared  to 
make.  It  developed,  however,  that  his  new  tale  was  so  pre- 
posterous that  it  had  to  be  discarded  in  part  and  remodeled 
in  vital  details — and  later  totally  abandoned ! 

FUNK'S  HUMILIATING  RETREAT 

The  task  which  confronted  Funk,  his  attorneys  and  certain 
members  of  the  Board  was  to  assume  some  date  on  which  / 
could  not  prove  my  innocence.  The  attempt  to  prove  me  guilty 
was  now  openly  abandoned.  From  this  point  on  a  desperate 
attempt  was  made,  not  to  prove  a  date,  but  to  make  me  dis- 
prove any  date  which  Funk  or  other  of  my  persecutors  might 

79 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE  U.   L.  CLUB 

care  to  assume!    The  official  record  contains  the  proof  that  I 
was  subjected  to  that  injustice. 

On  cross-examination,  when  Funk  was  confronted  with  his 
testimony,  given  both  before  the  Helm  and  Dillingham  Com- 
mittees, which  directly  contradicted  his  new  statement,  Funk 
sought  to  escape  from  the  embarrassing  position  in  which  he 
found  himself  by  falling  back  to  his  original  testimony  before 
the  committee  which  fixed  the  editorial  of  Feb.  15  as  the  time 
of  the  alleged  second  talk.  The  following  then  occurred : 

MR.  EATON  :  You  desire  to  connect  it  with  the  read- 
ing of  this  Record-Herald  editorial,  do  you? 

MR.  FUNK:  It  happened  somewhere  along  that  time; 
I  cannot  say  definitely. 

MR.  EATON:  It  is  important  to  the  Board,  because  in 
your  testimony  the  other  day  you  nowhere  connected  it 
with  that  editorial,  did  you? 

MR.  FUNK  :    I  was  not  asked  that  question.   (U.  L.  40) 

Read  that  last  answer  and  judge  of  the  candor  and  frank- 
ness of  Clarence  S.  Funk!  Why  was  he  not  asked  that  ques- 
tion ?  Because  he  did  not  wish  to  answer  it.  Because  he  wished 
to  evade  being  confronted  with  the  proof  which  had  over- 
whelmed him  in  Washington.  Because  he  wished  to  leave  the 
alleged  date  so  indefinite  that  I  could  adduce  no  proof  to  repu- 
diate his  unsubstantiated  word.  Because  your  Board  protected 
him  by  not  asking  that  awkward  question.  That  was  why. 

WHAT  FUNK  CLAIMS  I  SAID  TO  HIM 

Let  us  now  consider  the  words  which  Funk  ascribes  to  me  in 
that  second  conversation — which  never  occurred.  We  will,  as 
usual,  go  back  to  his  original  story  as  told  to  the  Helm  Com- 
mittee. (Page  71,  Helm  Com.) 

QUESTION  :  What  conversation  did  you  have  with  him 
upon  that  occasion? 

MR.  FUNK  :  Well,  he  was  very  much  disturbed  at  that 
time  and  undertook  to  refresh  my  memory  as  to  what  our 
conversation  had  been? 

QUESTION:    What  did  he  say? 

80 


EDWARD   HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

MR.  FUNK:  Well,  I  cannot  repeat  his  language  ex- 
actly, but  in  substance  it  was  to  the  effect  that  his  former 
conversation  with  me  had  been  merely  a  general  discus- 
sion of  the  situation  down  there,  and  that  he  had  not  asked 
me  for  any  money,  and  that  he  did  not  know  anything 
about  money  having  been  raised. 

His  narration  of  this  alleged  incident  before  the  Dilling- 
ham  Committee  did  not  vary  much  from  the  above.  He  said : 
(Page  557,  Dill.  Com.) 

MR.  MARBLE  :     Now  tell  us  what  the  conversation  was. 

MR.  FUNK  :  Mr.  Hines  arrived  at  my  office  one  morn- 
ing shortly  after  I  got  there,  about  9  o'clock,  and  he  was 
admitted  to  my  room.  He  seemed  to  be  considerably  agi- 
tated, and  he  immediately  begun  to  talk  with  me  about 
our  former  conversation. 

MR.  MARBLE:     What  did  he  say? 

MR.  FUNK:  The  substance  of  it  was  that  he  did  not 
want  me  to  misunderstand  our  talk  the  other  day;  that 
he  had  not  meant  to  say  that  any  money  was  used,  but 
that  he  was  only  discussing  with  me  in  a  general  way  the 
situation  down  there ;  and  that  he  got  to  thinking  about  it 
afterwards  and  thought  that  I  might  not  have  understood 
it,  and  he  was  back  there  to  clear  it  up  for  me. 

Before  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Union  League  Club 
Funk  gave  this  version  of  my  alleged  conversation :  (Page  21, 
U.  L.) 

MR.  FUNK:  He  (Hines)  said  substantially  that  he  had 
been  thinking  about  that  last  talk  we  had  and  wanted  me 
to  understand  the  situation,  and  that  he  did  not  intend  to 
say  that  any  money  had  been  used,  etc.  And  I  told  him 
I  thought  I  did  understand  the  conversation,  and  mean- 
time they  were  calling  me  and  I  excused  myself  with  him. 

I  desire  to  call  your  attention  to  several  very  peculiar  things 
which  must  be  deduced  from  this  testimony  of  Funk's. 

Study  that  explanation  of  Funk's  and  ask  yourself  if  it 
sounds  reasonable.  You  remember  his  account  of  our  first 
meeting  in  the  Union  League  Club.  It  was  most  specific  in 

81 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

character,  and  left  no  room  for  any  misunderstanding  concern- 
ing what  was  meant  by  the  words  which  Funk  put  in  my  mouth. 
He  declared  that  I  specifically  stated  to  him  that  "It  cost 
$100,000  to  put  Lorimer  over,"  that  "we  had  to  put  the  money 
up  in  a  hurry"  without  time  to  consult  anybody,  and  that  I 
asked  him  for  a  contribution  of  $10,000  to  help  make  up  the 
fund,  and  that  I  directed  him  to  send  the  money  to  Edward 
Tilden. 

CAN  YOU  EXPLAIN  THIS? 

There  was  nothing  vague  about  those  alleged  statements. 
They  are  susceptible  of  only  one  meaning,  and,  if  they  were 
true,  would  leave  me  without  the  slightest  hope  that  I  could 
delude  Funk  into  believing  that  I  had  said  something  which 
might  be  construed,  "I  had  not  meant  to  say  that  any 
money  was  used,"  and  that  "I  was  only  discussing  in  a  general 
way  the  situation  down  there,"  and  that  he  (Funk)  "might  not 
understand  it."  How  on  earth  could  he  fail  to  understand  a 
bold  demand  for  $10,000  which  was  to  be  sent  to  Mr.  Tilden? 

Funk  would  have  you  believe  that  after  I  had  made  these 
specific  statements  to  him  concerning  this  alleged  corruption 
fund,  that  I  rushed  to  his  office  because  of  a  vague  charge  in 
an  editorial,  knowing  that  he  was  my  enemy  and  responsible 
for  its  publication,  and  you  are  asked  to  believe  that  I  then 
attempted  to  placate  him  with  the  asinine  explanation  of  the 
specific  statements  which  he  attributed  to  me  in  the  testimony 
he  has  given. 

If  Funk  had  charged  me  with  making  mere  general  and 
suggestive  statements  to  him  in  our  Union  League  Club  inter- 
view, statements  susceptible  of  double  meaning,  his  testi- 
mony relative  to  the  second  interview  might  assume  some  color 
of  credibility,  standing  by  itself.  However,  in  view  of  the  raw 
proposition  which  he  attributes  to  me  of  asking  him  to  con- 
tribute to  a  specifically  named  corruption  fund  and  giving  to 
him  the  details  of  the  same,  Funk's  explanation  of  this  second 
alleged  conversation  in  his  office  becomes  simply  unbelievable 
to  any  fair-minded  person. 

S2 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE  U.   L.   CLUB 

AND  HOW  ABOUT  THIS? 

Again,  you  will  also  notice  that  Funk  testified  that  "/  was 
admitted  to  his  room."  That  means  necessarily,  that  I  had  to 
gain  access  to  Funk  through  somebody  else  in  the  outer  office 
and  presumably  gave  my  name  to  some  office  attendant  who 
conveyed  the  same  to  Mr.  Funk  in  his  private  office,  or 
"room,"  as  he  terms  it.  And  still  Funk,  neither  at  any  time 
or  at  any  hearing,  brings  a  living  soul  to  corroborate  him  in  his 
claim  that  I  called  at  his  office,  as  testified  to  by  him.  Not  only 
this,  but  he  testified  at  one  time  before  the  hearing  of  the 
Board  of  this  Club  in  relation  to  another  matter  that  a  record 
is  kept  in  his  office  by  attendants  of  all  calls  made  upon  him 
either  personally  or  by  the  telephone,  and  if,  as  he  claims,  I 
called  upon  him  that  morning,  and  was  "admitted  to  his  room" 
he  would  according  to  his  own  statement  have  not  only  the 
corroboration  of  the  person  who  admitted  me,  but  a  record  in 
his  office  of  such  visit  made  at  the  time  and  he  would  certainly 
have  produced  it. 

You  will  also  observe  that  Funk  further  said  before  the 
Dillingham  Committee,  "in  this  second  talk  Hines  told  me  that 
he  did  not  want  me  to  misunderstand  our  talk  of  the  other 
day."  You  will  note  by  this  that  Funk  quotes  me  as  referring 
to  our  first  talk  as  having  occurred  "the  other  day"  which  was 
the  27th  day  of  May,  1909.  According  to  this  there  were  only 
a  few  days  between  the  two  talks,  and  for  aught  that  appears 
the  second  talk  may  have  been  in  the  same  month  of  May  as 
the  first  interview,  and  consequently  nearly  two  years  before 
the  appearance  of  the  Record-Herald  editorial  of  February 
15,  1911. 

It  was  the  editorial  of  February  15,  1911  "that  brought 
Kohlsaat  to  Springfield,"  and  it  was  that  editorial  that  Funk 
was  specifically  questioned  about  before  the  Helm  Committee 
and  also  before  the  Dillingham  Committee,  and  it  was  with 
reference  to  that  editorial  that  he  definitely  and  unequivocally 
fixed  the  time  of  this  alleged  second  talk  at  his  office.  At  the 
time  Funk  gave  his  testimony  before  the  Dillingham  Commit- 
tee with  reference  to  the  editorial  of  February  15,  1911,  and 

83 


EDWARD   HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

this  alleged  second  talk  I  had  not  yet  been  called  upon  to  tes- 
tify regarding  the  same. 

SOME  PROVED  FACTS  CONCERNING  FEB.  15 

At  the  hearing  before  the  Board,  on  January  2,  Chairman 
Sidley  brought  up  the  question  of  my  absence  from  Chicago 
from  February  7th  to  March  5th,  1911.  I  was  called  upon  to 
testify  by  your  Board  concerning  my  whereabouts  during  that 
period,  and  I  stated  as  follows : 

"The  statement  made  before  the  Helm  Committee  and 
the  Dillingham  Committee  was  that  I  went  to  Mr.  Funk's 
office  at  the  International  Harvester  Company  a  few  days 
or  a  short  time  after  this  Record-Herald  article  of  Feb- 
ruary 15,  1911.  I  did  not  go  there.  I  was  not  in  Chicago 
from  February  6  to  March  7 — March  6.  I  placed  before 
the  Dillingham  Committee  conclusive  evidence  of  where 
I  was  every  day — yes,  half  day — during  that  time.  I 
introduced  telegrams  that  I  received  every  day  in  Wash- 
ington; telegrams  that  I  sent  every  day  in  Washington; 
original  telegrams,  not  copies.  My  secretary  had  the 
adjoining  room  with  me  for  a  part  of  that  time.  Mrs. 
Hines  arrived  in  Washington  February  n,  and  stayed 
with  me  until  March  4.  In  addition  to  that  I  introduced 
long  distance  telephone  receipts,  accounting  for  every  day 
using  the  long  distance  telephone.  I  introduced  our  gen- 
eral manager  of  our  northern  properties  here  in  Chicago 
during  Mr.  Earth's  absence  in  California,  who  sent  me 
mail  every  day  up  to  the  second  day  of  March.  I  intro- 
duced the  purchasing  agent  of  the  American  Window 
Glass  Company,  with  whom  we  closed  a  large  contract. 
He  was  in  communication  with  me  on  the  long  distance 
telephone,  and  where  he  had  sent  telegrams  to  me,  one 
Pittsburg  to  Washington,  Washington  to  Pittsburg  and 
Chicago.  During  that  period  I  was  not  in  Chicago,  nor 
has  there  been  anybody  able  to  produce  anything — the 
slightest  evidence — that  I  was  in  Chicago  from  February 
6  to  March  4,  I  think  it  was.  I  arrived  home  on  March 
5  and  left  in  the  afternoon  of  March  6  for  Virginia, 
Minnesota,  to  attend  several  annual  meetings,  and  re- 
turned here  March  13.  I  have  had  the  system  since  I 
commenced  business — a  young  man  in  our  employ,  our 

84 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE  U.   L.   CLUB 

assistant  treasurer  has  a  record,  that  we  produced  in 
Washington  showing  where  I  was  every  day  of  the  year. 
If  I  leave  Chicago  a  telegram  is  sent  when  I  arrive  in 
New  York,  Philadelphia  or  wherever  I  go,  those  tele- 
grams are  sent;  so  I  can  verify  positively  where  I  was 
every  day  and  I  was  not  in  Chicago."  (80-8 1.) 

THE  BOARD  ACCEPTS  A  TRUTH 

At  the  next  meeting  of  the  Board,  however,  further  testi- 
mony relating  to  this  point  was  made  unnecessary  by  the  ad- 
mission of  the  Board  that  I  was  not  in  Chicago  from  February 
7th  to  March  5th,  1911.  The  following  colloquy  ensued: 

CHAIRMAN  :  I  don't  understand  that  there  is  any  ques- 
tion on  it. 

MR.  SCOTT:     Is  that  right,  Mr.  Eaton? 

A  MEMBER  :     Mr.  Hines  left  on  the  7th. 

MR.  EATON  :     From  our  standpoint  it  is  material. 

MR.  SCOTT  :     It  is  simply  a  question  of  fixing  the  dates. 

MR.  HINES  :  The  7th  of  February ;  arrived  in  Chicago 
on  the  5th  of  March. 

CHAIRMAN  :  Well,  it  will  be  assumed  for  the  purposes 
of  this  hearing  that  Mr.  Hines  was  absent  from  the  city 
during  that  time. 

There  was  no  dissent  from  any  member  of  the  Board  to 
this  most  important  ruling.  I  should  have  been  on  guard 
against  such  apparent  liberality,  but  I  was  not.  On  the  face 
of  it,  this  ruling  proclaimed  my  innocence.  It  was  an  open 
declaration  by  your  Board  that  Funk  had  testified  falsely  in 
Springfield  and  in  Washington.  It  was  an  official  admission  of 
the  validity  of  my  claim  that  I  was  not  in  Chicago  at  the  dates 
set  by  Funk  for  the  alleged  second  interview.  It  was  an 
affirmation  of  my  veracity  and  of  Funk's  untruthfulness. 

I  should  have  known  that  my  prosecutors  were  not  influ- 
enced by  any  motive  of  fairness  or  liberality  in  thus  admitting 
as  a  fact  this  most  important  point.  I  should  have  suspected 
that  this  seeming  concession  was  inspired  by  a  dread  of  con- 
fronting Funk  with  the  plain  proof  of  his  impeachment  in 
Washington.  It  soon  developed  that  those  on  the  Board  who 

85 


EDWARD   HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

had  prejudged  my  case,  then  felt  warranted  in  expelling  me 
despite  the  fact  that  they  knew  Funk  was  a  discredited  witness, 
and  that  the  sole  motive  in  then  admitting  my  alibi  was  to 
prevent  the  impeachment  of  Funk  from  appearing,  on  the  record. 
I  ask  you  to  consider  the  astounding  situation  in  which  Funk 
found  himself  because  of  this  admission  that  I  was  not  in  Chi- 
cago at  or  near  the  time  of  the  publication  of  the  Record- 
Herald  editorial  of  February  15,  1911.  In  his  original  testi- 
mony before  the  Board,  Funk  had  placed  the  date  of  the 
alleged  second  interview  at  a  few  months  after  the  Union 
League  conversation  of  May  27,  1909.  His  most  specific  state- 
ment was  that  it  "was  four  or  five  months  afterwards."  He 
was  compelled  to  admit  that  this  was  "a  mistake,"  that  he  did 
not  "catch  the  drift  of  the  questions,"  etc.  Funk  then  took 
refuge  under  the  roof  of  the  editorial  of  February  15,  1911, 
but  that  roof  was  now  torn  down  by  the  Board  with  the  consent 
of  Funk's  attorney.  He  therefore  was  again  wandering  in 
the  indefinite  period  of  "a  few  months  after"  the  Union  League 
Club  conversation  of  May  27,  1909.  He  had  completed  the 
circle  of  inveracity. 

1  ••'',  '-''.K- "   '  1 
FUNK'S  FIGHT  WITH  FACTS 

Funk  was,  in  fact,  committed  to  the  "few  months"  theory. 
It  was  affirmed  more  than  once  in  this  testimony  of  his  before 
your  Board.  Listen  to  him: 

QUESTION:  Had  the  matter  become  public  before  this 
second  conversation? 

MR.  FUNK:     No. 

QUESTION:  Did  you  later  mention  that  conversation 
to  anybody  which  gave  it  more  publicity? 

MR.  FUNK:  Yes;  I  mentioned  it  to  Mr.  Kohlsaat,  a 
personal  friend  of  mine. 

QUESTION  :     How  long  ago  was  that  ? 

MR.  FUNK  :  That  was  several  months  afterwards,  as  I 
recall  it.  It  was  just  about  the  time  Mr.  Hines  came  to 
see  me  the  second  time,  and  I  connected  those  two  things 
in  my  mind.  (U.  L.  21.) 

86 


EDWARD   MINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 
Later  in  the  same  examination  this  occurred : 

QUESTION  :  Mr.  Funk,  was  this  conversation  you  had 
with  Mr.  Kohlsaat  before  or  after  the  first  Senate  inves- 
tigation took  place  in  Washington? 

MR.  FUNK  :    It  was  before. 

Referring  to  the  official  record  of  the  Dillingham  Committee 
(page  553)  we  find  this  illuminating  testimony: 

SENATOR  JONES  :  How  long  after  your  talk  with  Hines 
did  this  conversation  with  Mr.  Kohlsaat  occur? 

MR.  FUNK  :  I  cannot  fix  the  date  definitely ;  but  I  think 
it  was  several  months. 

And  on  page  551  of  the  Dillingham  Committee  record : 

SENATOR  FLETCHER:  Was  it  (the  Kohlsaat  conversa- 
tion) a  year  after  the  conversation  with  Mr.  Hines? 

MR.  FUNK  :  No ;  I  think  not.  It  may  have  been  a  few 
months  afterwards. 

A  member  of  the  Board,  who  doubtless  perceived  the  des- 
perate situation  thus  confronting  Funk,  asked  him  these  ques- 
tions : 

"QUESTION:  You  gave  this  same  testimony  several 
times  under  oath,  have  you  ?  ANSWER  :  I  have  twice. 

QUESTION  :  Twice  when  ?  ANSWER  :  Before  the  com- 
mittee at  Springfield,  Illinois,  and  before  the  Lorimer  In- 
vestigation at  Washington.  .  .  . 

QUESTION  :  Have  you  any  occasion  to  change  anything 
which  you  have  stated  under  oath  at  these  investigations 
in  which  you  made  statements  under  oath?  ANSWER: 
No." 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  it  was  evident  that  on  this  occasion 
Funk  purposely  changed  the  testimony  in  regard  to  the  date 
of  the  alleged  second  conversation  so  greatly,  is  it  not  most 
significant  that  a  member  of  the  Board  should  put  the  above 
questions  to  him?  It  is  perfectly  evident  that  the  member 
of  the  Board  had  noticed  the  tremendous  discrepancy  in  this 
respect,  and  was  trying  to  straighten  Funk  out,  and  give  him 
the  opportunity  to  reconcile  these  various  statements  if  he 

87 


EDWARD  MINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

could.  It  is  evident  that  Funk  either  did  not  catch  the  signifi- 
cance of  the  member's  question,  or  did  not  care  to  avail  him- 
self of  the  generous  opportunity  thus  afforded  him. 

Afterwards,  on  January  2,  1912,  at  the  first  hearing  of  the 
Board  at  which  I  was  present,  the  whole  of  his  testimony  given 
at  the  private  hearing  before  the  Board  on  November  13,  1911, 
was  carefully  read  over  to  Funk  and  when  that  reading  was 
completed  the  following  occurred : 

"A  MEMBER:  Mr.  Funk,  if  you  have  any  corrections 
to  make  in  this  statement,  or  anything  to  add  to  it,  you  are 
at  liberty  to  do  so  now."  (U.  L.  24) 

The  puzzled  and  apprehensive  member  was  still  trying  to 
help  Funk  out,  but  the  latter  stuck  to  the  story  which  then 
seemed  most  helpful  to  him,  and  said : 

MR.  FUNK:  That  statement  is  substantially  correct. 
There  appear  to  be  a  few  little  grammatical  errors  that 
are  of  no  consequence.  The  statement  is  substantially  as 
I  made  it. 

QUESTION  :    You  have  nothing  to  add  to  it  now  ? 

MR.  FUNK:    No,  sir.    (U.  L.  24) 

No,  Funk  had  nothing  to  add  about  any  editorial.  He  now 
had  good  and  sufficient  reason  to  fear  making  any  attempt  to 
connect  my  alleged  second  visit  with  any  editorial  in  view  of 
the  evidence  before  the  Dillingham  Committee.  After  his  fail- 
ure to  make  out  what  his  attorneys  considered  a  sufficient  case« 
by  his  testimony  as  given  at  the  secret  hearing  of  November 
1 3th,  Funk  was  later  forced  to  select  still  another  new  date, 
with  results  most  disastrous  to  him,  as  you  will  learn. 

THE  CASE  IS  FORMALLY  CLOSED 

Upon  the  completion  of  the  testimony  on  January  3,  1912, 
the  Chairman  announced  that  the  arguments  of  counsel  upon 
the  evidence  presented  were  in  order,  and  that  "it  was  the  de- 
sire and  intention  of  the  Board  that  at  this  time  the  matter 
should  be  closed  up."  (349.)  My  counsel,  urging  the  pressure 

88 


EDWARD  H1NES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

that  he  had  been  under  in  being  suddenly  called  into  the  case 
with  no  opportunity  to  marshal  the  evidence,  asked  that  an 
adjournment  be  taken  to  some  other  day,  so  as  to  enable  him 
to  complete  his  references  to  the  testimony  and  tabulate  the 
exhibits,  and  thus  better  prepare  himself  to  argue  the  case.  In 
response  to  this  request  the  following  occurred : 

"THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  is  no  suggestion  of  any 
further  testimony  that  you  seek  to  offer 

"MR.  EATON  :     No. 

"THE  CHAIRMAN:  I  mean  beyond  that  that  we  have 
heard. 

"MR.  EATON:     That  testimony  is  entitled  to 

"THE  CHAIRMAN  :     Excuse  me.    No  more  witnesses  ? 

"MR.  EATON  :     No,  I  am  through. 

"THE  CHAIRMAN  :  Then  we  will  consider  the  matter." 
(351-352.) 

Having  thus  carefully  committed  us  not  to  produce  any 
more  witnesses,  the  Board,  after  a  conference,  announced 
through  its  chairman  that  the  arguments  would  be  postponed  to 
January  13,  and  an  adjournment  was  thereupon  taken  to  that 
date. 

Upon  the  reconvening  of  the  Board  on  January  13,  1912,  the 
arguments  were  heard,  Mr.  Scott  arguing  the  case  on  behalf 
of  Mr.  Funk,  and  Mr.  Eaton  presenting  the  argument  in  my 
behalf.  The  fact  that  I  was  not  in  Chicago  from  February  7 
to  March  5,  1911,  having  been  conceded  at  the  previous  hear- 
ing, Mr.  Scott,  in  his  final  argument,  made  no  claim  that  the 
alleged  second  talk  occurred  within  a  day  or  two  after  the 
editorial  of  February  15,  1911,  as  previously  testified  to  by 
Funk  before  the  Helm  and  Dillingham  Committees,  but  based 
his  argument  wholly  upon  Funk's  changed  testimony,  as  given 
in  the  secret  session  of  November  13,  1911,  in  which  the  time 
of  the  alleged  second  talk  was  variously  fixed  by  Funk  at  times 
long  antedating  any  editorial  relating  to  the  matter.  To  quote 
Mr.  Scott: 

"Mr.  Funk  in  his  testimony  first  said  he  thought  it  was 

89 


EDWARD   H1NES  TO  THE   U.    L.   CLUB 

four  or  five  months  after  the  first  conversation  that  Mines 
came  to  see  him.  Later  he  said  he  thought  it  was  longer 
than  that,  but  that  he  could  not  fix  the  time  definitely; 
.  .  .  it  was  about  that  time  that  he  mentioned  the  mat- 
ter to  Mr.  Kohlsaat.  .  .  .  Before  the  Dillingham 
Committee  he  testified  it  was  a  few  days  after  the  publica- 
tion of  the  Record-Herald  editorial,  but  he  said  he  had  not 
read  the  Record-Herald  editorial  before  Hines  visited 
him."  (403.) 

You  thus  see  that  at  this  stage  of  the  proceedings  (which 
was  supposed  to  be  the  closing  of  the  case)  Funk's  case  rested 
squarely  upon  the  proposition  that  this  alleged  second  talk 
occurred  four  or  five  months  after  the  first  talk,  or  at  the 
time  that  he  first  told  Kohlsaat  about  the  matter,  which  we 
have  seen  was  about  a  year  or  more  before  the  investigation 
of  the  United  States  Senate  Committee  (known  as  the  Bur- 
rows Committee),  and  is  not  and  could  not  be  associated  with 
the  publication  of  any  editorial. 

FIRST  HINT  OF  A  NEW  EDITORIAL 

Attorney  Scott  closed  his  address  with  a  vague  hint  which 
puzzled  Mr.  Eaton  and  myself.  It  was  a  hint  that  the  Record- 
Herald  editorial  of  February  15,  1911,  was  not  the  one  that 
Funk  had  in  mind.  In  this  connection  Mr.  Scott  said : 

I  have  only  this  to  say  on  that  point  further:  It  is 
merely  the  association  of  the  fact  that  the  editorial  prob- 
ably induced  his  coming  that  led  Mr.  Funk  to  use  it  as  a 
basis  at  all  for  fixing  the  time  of  his  coming,  and  he  said 
that  he  had  not  read  the  editorial  at  the  time  he  came. 
Nor  is  it  anywhere  fixed  definitely  that  the  editorial  to 
which  he  (Funk)  refers  means  that  of  February  15.  If 
that  was  not  the  first  editorial  in  which  reference  to  the 
$100,000  going  to  Springfield  appears,  then  the  (Hines) 
alibi  is  absolutely  of  no  value,  and  I  submit  to  you,  gentle- 
men, if  there  is  a  possibility  of  these  things  being  settled 
upon  that  question — even  at  personal  inconvenience  to 
yourselves — in  order  to  enable  Mr.  Eaton  to  make  any 
reply  he  can,  the  question  I  submit  in  all  fairness  should 
be  opened  whether  that  was  the  time  or  not.  (U.  L.  414) 

90 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

Mr.  Eaton  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  it  had  been  agreed 
that  February  I5th  was  the  date  in  question.  Chairman  Sidley 
then  made  a  remarkable  statement:  "//  such  agreement  was 
made,  then  I  say  the  case  should  be  reopened."  And  this  in 
the  face  of  the  fact  that  the  case  had  formally  been  closed ! 

What  then  followed  ?  The  case  was  not  then  reopened.  Mr. 
Eaton  was  told  to  make  his  argument  for  my  defense,  which  he 
did. 

What  was  in  the  minds  of  those  who  had  prejudged  me? 
What  was  back  of  that  veiled  suggestion  that  the  alibi  proved 
in  Washington  was  valueless?  What  was  the  meaning  of 
these  mysterious  hints  that  there  might  be  another  editorial? 

Upon  the  completion  of  Mr.  Eaton's  argument  the  Chair- 
man said: 

"Mr.  Eaton,  will  you  and  Mr.  Hines  remain  in  the  club 
house  during  the  dinner  hour  in  case  we  should  wish  to  say 
anything  ?" 

We  supposed  that  we  were  asked  to  remain  to  hear  the  deci- 
sion and  we  thereupon  retired  from  the  room  at  6:30  p.  m., 
and  were  called  back  into  the  board  room  at  9  -.26  p.  m.,  when 
to  our  intense  surprise  the  Chairman  made  this  statement: 
(489.) 

"THE  CHAIRMAN  :  Mr.  Eaton,  this  matter  of  the  so- 
called  alibi  has  taken  on  an  importance  in  minds  of  the 
Board  which  seem  to  justify  some  further  consideration  of 
it.  At  the  time  that  the  testimony  was  put  in  there  was  a 
statement  made  to  you  that  for  the  purposes  of  the  hear- 
ing it  might  be  considered  that  Mr.  Hines  was  absent  on 
certain  dates  from  the  city  of  Chicago,  and  certain  wit- 
nesses of  yours  were  excluded  on  that  ground.  The 
matter  has  now  assumed  as  the  result  of  the  argument 
an  importance  which  in  the  minds  of  the  Board  justifies 
them  in  reconsidering  that  point  and  reopening  the  ques- 
tion, the  whole  question,  relating  to  Mr.  Hines'  presence  or 
absence  and  also — and  any  light  that  may  be  thrown  upon 
that  by  the  introduction  of  evidence  on  the  other  side." 

What  happened  during  that  secret  session  of  your  Board 
has  not  been  disclosed  to  me.  Under  the  rules  of  the  Club  a 

91 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

two-thirds  vote  of  the  Board  is  necessary  for  the  expulsion 
of  a  member  under  charges.  May  the  inference  be  properly 
drawn  that  two-thirds  of  the  Board  declined  to  vote  against 
me  on  the  evidence  which  had  been  submitted  when  the  case 
had  thus  formally  been  closed  ?  It  is  a  certainty  that  had  those 
on  the  Board  opposed  to  me  been  able  to  muster  the  votes  re- 
quired to  expel  me,  they  would  not  have  adopted  the  desperate 
expedient  of  reopening  a  case  after  the  arguments  had  been 
heard,  and  the  case  taken  under  consideration. 

SPRINGING  THE  NEW  EDITORIAL  OF  JAN.  20 

A  few  moments  later,  Chairman  Sidley  revealed  the  vital 
feature  of  the  new  case  which  the  prosecution  had  framed.  He 
informed  us  that  Attorney  Scott  had  knowledge  of  "an  edito- 
rial which  appeared  at  an  earlier  date  than  the  one  which  was 
referred  to  as  the  editorial  of  February  15,"-  and  despite  the 
earnest  protest  of  Mr.  Eaton  that  the  case  had  been  closed, 
Chairman  Sidley  ruled  that  it  was  not  closed,  and  instructed 
the  Secretary  to  read  a  new  Record-Herald  editorial  of  January 
20,  1911,  which  he  did,  as  follows: 

"WHO  GOT  THE  $100,000  LORIMER  ELEC- 
TION MONEY?  Said  Senator  Burrows:  There  is 
absolutely  no  proof  in  this  case,  direct  or  indirect,  from 
which  a  legitimate  inference  could  be  drawn  that  a  single 
member  of  the  General  Assembly  was  corruptly  influenced 
to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer.' 

"This  is  a  sweeping  assertion,  and,  while  it  may  indi- 
cate that  Senator  Burrows  himself  is  innocent-minded  and 
without  guile,  we  fear  that  it  goes  rather  too  far  to  find 
ready  credence  even  among  humble,  untutored  persons. 
The  Senator's  trust  and  distrust  are  equally  notable.  He 
believes  in  Lorimer  and  the  Lorimerites.  He  lumps 
White,  Link,  Beckemeyer  and  Holstlaw  together  and  de- 
clares that  'it  is  obvious  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  state- 
ments of  any  of  one  of  them  or  in  the  statements  of  all 
of  them  taken  together  which  would  justify  a  conclusion 
that  their  testimony  as  to  bribery  is  true,  or  could  be  relied 
upon  in  a  matter  even  of  minor  importance.' 

"These  men,  acting  at  different  times,  under  different  . 
92 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.  CLUB 

circumstances  and  impulses,  piled  up  the  evidence  and  sus- 
tained one  another's  testimony,  but  that  is  nothing.  Hoist- 
law,  who  convinced  many  who  might  have  doubted,  told 
a  story,  according  to  the  Senator,  that  was  impossible  of 
belief.  He  destroyed  his  own  good  reputation,  ruined  him- 
self for  the  fun  of  the  thing.' 

"The  Senator  overshot  the  mark  in  his  enthusiasm  as 
a  leader  of  a  great  and  noble  cause.  The  purse  was  raised 
— $100,000.  Holstlaw  named  his  share  of  it,  the  bills  he 
speaks  of  went  to  a  Chicago  bank,  he  is  confirmed  by 
the  record  of  the  bank's  deposits. 

"But  the  innocent  Burrows  remains  adamant.  What 
does  he  think  become  of  the  money.  Who  got  it  and  so 
prevented  its  corrupt  use  in  the  Legislature?" 

Attorney  Scott,  who  produced  that  editorial,  and  who  doubt- 
less knew  of  it  before  the  hearings  started,  did  not  intro- 
duce it  in  evidence  when  it  would  properly  have  been  admis- 
sible, did  not  refer  to  it  in  the  argument  which  he  had  made 
that  very  day,  and  claimed  in  that  argument  that  Funk  must 
be  a  truthful  witness  because  he  could  not  fix  the  date  of  the 
alleged  second  conversation. 

ASTONISHING   IGNORANCE 

Chairman  Sidley  made  an  equally  astounding  contribution. 
He  said  that  nobody  had  seen  that  editorial  up  to  that  time,  and 
that  the  Board  did  not  know  what  was  in  it  (490).  He  also 
said  that  he  did  not  know  whether  it  was  immaterial  or  mate- 
rial (494).  And  (495)  "None  of  us  know  what  is  in  this 
editorial  at  this  moment ;  we  are  all  entirely  ignorant  of  what 
is  in  the  editorial." 

And  yet,  claiming  not  to  know  a  thing  about  what  was  in 
that  editorial  he  and  the  Board  insisted  that  it  should  go  into 
the  record ;  and  that  there  should  be  (490)  "a  reopening  of  the 
question,  the  whole  question,  relating  to  Mr.  Hines'  presence 
or  absence."  Bear  in  mind  that  the  case  had  been  finished; 
the  arguments  had  been  made,  and  we  were  asked  to  retire 
while  "the  jury,"  as  we  supposed,  considered  what  verdict 
they  should  render. 

93 


EDWARD  MINES  TO  THE  U.   L.   CLUB 

And  after  an  interval  of  about  three  hours,  namely,  from 
6:30  to  9:25,  they  evidently  realized  that  the  evidence  which 
I  gave  and  the  concession  that  the  Board  had  made  that  I 
was  out  of  the  city,  not  only  at  the  time  of  the  editorial  of 
February  15,  1911,  but  from  the  7th  of  February  before  that 
until  the  5th  of  March  after  that  continuously,  so  utterly  dis- 
credited Funk  in  reference  to  the  alleged  second  talk  that  he 
had  had  with  me,  that  they  could  not  possibly  even  risk  carry- 
ing out  their  programme  which  they  had  to  expel  me;  and 
that  they  must  have  something  to  relieve  them  from  their 
dilemma ;  and  they  grasped  at  that  straw,  the  January  20  edito- 
rial, and  the  Chairman,  while  protesting  that  he  and  the 
whole  Board  were  ignorant  of  the  contents  of  that  editorial, 
ordered  it  to  be  filed  as  a  part  of  their  record.  If  it  were 
true  that  they  did  not  know  the  contents  of  that  editorial  at 
that  time,  what  justification  on  earth  could  they  have  for 
making  it  a  part  of  the  record?  None  whatever.  The  irre- 
sistable  inference  is  that  they  did  know  the  nature  of  that 
editorial  at  the  very  time  they  were  protesting  their  ignorance. 

Here  we  have  the  situation  of  the  evidence  having  been 
heard,  the  arguments  made  and  the  case  in  the  hands  of  the 
Board  for  consideration  for  several  hours,  when,  without  any 
previous  intimation  to  me  or  my  counsel,  the  case  is  suddenly 
abandoned  and  a  new  line  of  attack  made  upon  me — an  attack 
based  on  an  editorial  never  before  mentioned  or  hinted  at  at 
any  hearing.  Was  this  new  editorial  introduced  in  the  hope 
and  expectation  that  I  would  not  be  able  to  disprove  the  said 
alleged  second  talk  with  Funk  as  fixed  by  that  editorial? 

FUNK  REMINDED   OF  A  DUTY 

Feeling  that  an  unjust  attempt  was  being  made  to  place  me 
in  a  situation  where  it  was  hoped  that  I  lacked  the  evidence 
with  which  to  defend  myself  (and  I  then  realized  that  a  failure 
to  establish  my  innocence  conclusively  meant  that  certain  mem- 
bers of  the  Board  would  decree  my  guilt),  I  addressed  the 
Chairman  as  follows: 

94 


EDWARD   HINES  TO   THE   U.    L.   CLUB 

"I  feel,  Mr.  Chairman,  very  much  concerned  in  this. 
I  wish  to  say  a  word.  This  matter  here  is  only  of  trivial 
significance  as  compared  with  Washington,  which  is  a  trial 
before  a  higher  tribunal.  Mr.  Funk  and  his  counsel  have 
settled  his  testimony  in  Washington  that  the  February  15 
article  was  the  article  referred  to.  Now,  gentlemen,  you 
must  take  into  account  that  it  is  not  justice  to  me  to  bring 
this  changed  condition.  If  Mr.  Funk  was  right,  or  thought 
he  was  right,  should  not  his  duty  be  to  go  to  Washington 
and  say:  'I  have  made  a  mistake,  and  in  place  of  Feb- 
ruary 15  it  is  January  20?'  Gentlemen,  this  thing  tonight 
here  is  a  serious  matter  to  me  personally.  The  trial  at 
Washington  is  the  great  trial.  He  (Funk)  went  there,  you 
remember,  as  a  witness,  and  settled  absolutely  that  the 
article  of  February  15  was  the  one  on  which  he  based  his 
date. 

"Now,  you  know  that,  gentlemen,  and  it  applies  just 
as  much  before  the  Helm  Committee.  I  have  not  brought 
in  new  evidence  here  at  all ;  not  a  word  of  new  evidence. 
We  settled  on  the  I5th  of  February  transaction,  and  I 
think  that  it  is  a  great  injustice  to  me  to  attempt  to  change 
that  date  after  I  have  shown  by  everything  here  at  hand, 
where  I  was  prior  to  that,  and  everything  else,  and  placed 
it  before  the  Board.  .  .  .  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentle- 
men, counsel  for  Mr.  Funk  has  not  taken  advantage  of 
that  new  evidence,  since  he  has  not  gone  to  Washington, 
where  duty  should  compel  him  to  go.  It  does  not  show 
good  faith." 

Thereupon  a  member  asked  the  question:  "Mr.  President, 
do  I  understand  you  have  ruled  this  a  part  of  the  record,  the 
editorial  ?"  The  Chairman  said :  "The  editorial  is  now  a  part 
of  the  record." 

This  was  on  Saturday,  January  13,  and  after  considerable 
argument  my  counsel  asked  for  time  to  meet  the  new  situa- 
tion as  presented  by  that  editorial,  and  the  Board  adjourned  to 
January  26,  1912.  And  then  on  January  26,  without  taking 
any  testimony,  they  adjourned  to  February  15. 

A  MOST  REMARKABLE  PROCEDURE 

What  were  we  called  on  to  establish  in  this  session  of  Feb- 
ruary 15,  1912?  By  a  peculiar  coincidence  the  date  was  that 
of  the  famous  editorial  fixed  by  the  Dillingham  prosecution  as 

95 


EDWARD   HIKES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

the  one  which  impelled  me  to  hold  the  second  conversation  with 
Funk.  Your  Board  had  formally  admitted  that  I  was  not  in 
Chicago  on  that  date.  It  had  read  into  the  record  a  new 
editorial,  the  one  of  January  20.  You  would  think  that  I 
would  be  called  on  to  defend  myself  against  that;  would  you 
not? 

Not  a  bit  of  it.  Chairman  Sidley  openly  repudiated  his  act 
and  that  of  the  Board  in  placing  on  the  record  the  unequivocal 
ruling:  "It  will  be  assumed  for  the  purpose  of  this  hearing 
that  Mr.  Hines  was  absent  from  the  city  during  that  time. 
(From  February  7  to  March  5,  1911.)" 

Consider  the  situation:  Against  our  earnest  protest  I  had 
been  formally  notified  that  I  must  bring  evidence  to  combat 
the  editorial  of  January  20,  but  I  must  first  establish  before  the 
Board  the  alibi  they  had  once  admitted  and  which  had  con- 
clusively been  proved  in  Washington!  I  realize  that  this 
sounds  impossible,  but  this  actually  happened  within  the  walls 
of  your  Club. 

Funk  knew,  Chairman  Sidley  knew,  Attorney  Scott  knew 
and  every  member  of  your  Board  knew  this  alibi  was  valid  and 
unassailable  by  any  fair  means.  Why,  then,  did  they  insist 
that  I  should  again  prove  what  had  once  been  admitted  ?  Was  it 
because  of  a  faint  hope  that  there  might  develop  something  in 
the  presentation  of  my  evidence  which  would  serve  as  a  pretext 
to  convict  me  because  of  it?  They  did  not  doubt  the  truth  of 
that  alibi,  but  they  hoped  that  there  might  be  some  slip  which 
might  afford  a  pretext  for  a  verdict  against  me.  In  the  prob- 
able event  that  the  proof  could  not  be  ignored,  they  would  then 
fall  back  on  the  new  editorial  of  January  20.  In  the  event  that 
I  refuted  that  date  they  would  set  others.  In  the  event  that  I 
cleared  myself  on  all  the  dates  conjectured  they  would  expel  me 
anyway!  This,  I  was  forced  to  believe,  was  the  premeditated 
plan,  and  it  was  executed  to  the  letter. 

I  AGAIN  PROVE  THE  OBVIOUS 

The  farce  of  compelling  me  to  prove  again  the  alibi  relative 
to  February  15,  1911,  then  began.  We  produced  Mr.  Edward 

96 


EDWARD   HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

H.  Thomas,  who  testified  that  ever  since  1894  I  had  been 
attending  to  my  personal  matters,  and  had  a  system  of  keeping 
track  of  my  absences  from  Chicago  and  of  keeping  a  record 
of  my  departures  from  and  returns  to  the  city,  and  what 
I  left  the  city  for,  and  if  telegrams  or  communications  were 
received  from  me  indicating  my  presence  in  some  other  place 
than  my  original  destination,  that  a  proper  entry  is  made 
^p.  521-3).  Those  records  were  produced  by  Mr.  Thomas 
with  reference  to  the  period  in  question,  showing  that  on  Feb- 
ruary 7,  1911,  I  left  for  New  York  and  Washington,  and 
returned  March  5,  1911;  and  we  showed  to  the  Board  other 
corroborative  documentary  evidence  such  as  telegrams,  etc. 
Mr.  Nelson,  my  private  secretary,  then  testified.  He  accom- 
panied me  from  Chicago  on  February  7,  and  was  with  me  the 
whole  of  the  time  that  I  was  absent  till  March  5,  with  the 
exception  of  a  day  or  so  when  I  was  in  New  York  or  Phila- 
delphia. Mr.  Nelson  submitted  his  stenographic  books,  ex- 
pense accounts,  etc.,  and  conclusively  established  my  absence 
during  that  period.  We  also  produced  Mr.  Toomey  and  Mr. 
Swift,  and  then  introduced  a  large  mass  of  evidence  which  I 
gathered  at  great  expense  of  time  and  effort,  and  which  proved 
so  conclusively  that  I  was  not  in  Chicago  from  February  7  to 
March  5  that  Funk  and  his  counsel  and  the  Board  finally  aban- 
doned that  indisputable  point. 

Later  in  the  hearings,  when  Funk  and  his  attorney  were 
trying  to  fix  the  alleged  second  talk  with  reference  to  this  other 
editorial  of  January  20,  1911,  they  produced  the  private  secre- 
tary of  Mr.  McCormick,  president  of  the  International  Har- 
vester Company,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  by  the  secretary's 
diary  that  a  conference  was  held  upon  the  morning  of  January 
20  between  Mr.  Funk,  Mr.  McCormick  and  Mr.  Bancroft.  It 
appeared  from  an  examination  of  that  diary  that  from  Feb- 
ruary 5  to  March  10  Mr.  McCormick  was  absent  from  Chi- 
cago, and  that  Mr.  Bancroft  was  also  absent  from  February  13 
to  February  25,  1911,  and  also  that  Mr.  Funk  was  absent  from 
the  city  from  February  19  to  February  23,  1911.  The  signifi- 
cance of  these  diary  entries  (as  thus  revealed  for  the  first  time) 

97 


HOWARD  MINES  TO  THE  u.  L.  CLUB 

is  apparent  when  it  is  remembered  that  Mr.  Funk's  testimony 
before  the  Helm  and  Dillingham  Committees  was  that  the 
alleged  second  talk  with  me  occurred  at  the  time  of  or  within 
a  day  or  two  of  the  publication  of  the  editorial  of  February  15, 
1911,  and  that  he  informed  Mr.  McCormick  of  that  alleged 
second  talk  on  the  same  day  that  it  occurred,  and  likewise  in- 
formed Mr.  Bancroft  on  the  same  day,  and  both  he  and  Mr. 
Bancroft  so  testified  before  the  Dillingham  committee. 

THE  BOARD  AGAIN  ADMITS  A  TRUTH 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  Funk  and  the  prosecution,  both 
before  the  Helm  Committee  and  Dillingham  Committee,  care- 
fully concealed  the  diary  evidence  in  their  possession,  which 
evidence  disproved  Funk's  sworn  testimony  that  this  alleged 
second  talk  occurred  within  a  few  days  after  February  15, 
1911,  or  anywhere  near  that  time.  On  the  hearing  before  the 
Board  of  this  Club  this  diary  was  not  produced  until  the  prose- 
cution and  those  behind  it  had  first  required  us  to  put  in  our 
proof  covering  the  period  subsequent  to  February  15,  and  not 
until  they  became  satisfied  beyond  a  doubt  that  there  was  no 
loophole  for  escape  from  the  fact  that  I  was  not  in  Chicago 
during  the  period  in  question. 

In  fact,  Mr.  Loesch  (who  succeeded  Mr.  Scott  as  Funk's 
attorney),  in  his  final  argument  to  the  Board,  said  (p.  845)  : 

"Mr.  McCormick  was  absent  from  February  5  to 
March  10.  Consequently  the  interview  could  not  have 
taken  place  in  February  at  all;  it  could  not  have  been  after 
the  I5th  of  February."  and  (p.  846)  he  said:  "I  am 
assuming  that  the  alibi  proved  in  the  case  is  correct  and 
shows  continuous  absence  (of  Mr.  Hines)  from  Chicago 
from  the  "jth  of  February  until  the  4th  of  March." 

So  at  last  the  Board  and  Funk  and  his  counsel  had  to  admit 
that  I  was  right  in  the  statement  I  made  to  them  that  I  was 
not  in  Chicago  during  that  period ;  that  my  evidence  was  true 
which  established  that  point;  and  that  the  concession  made  by 
the  Board  long  before  ought  to  have  stood,  and  that  the  re- 
opening of  the  case  upon  that  point  was  an  imposition  upon 

98 


EDWARD   HINES  TO   THE   U.    L.   CLUB 

me  of  unnecessary  expense  and  labor.  This  is  another  sample 
both  of  the  shiftiness  of  Funk  and  his  counsel,  and  also  of  the 
kind  of  treatment  I  received  in  those  hearings.  The  great 
mass  of  evidence  I  produced  is  in  the  record  of  the  Board  and 
is  supposed  to  be  on  file  with  the  Board,  and  it  is  not  necessary 
for  me  to  repeat  it  here. 

ANOTHER  DATE  ABANDONED 

I  quickly  realized  that  I  would  be  compelled  to  prove  that 
I  did  not  call  at  Funk's  office  on  any  of  the  days  that  I  was 
really  in  Chicago.  Even  if  I  had  thus  called  on  Funk  the 
mere  fact  would  have  proved  nothing  against  me.  His  com- 
pany was  one  of  our  customers,  and  conditions  might  have 
arisen  which  would  have  necessitated  a  personal  conference 
with  him.  I  held  no  such  conference  or  any  conference  with 
him  on  any  subject. 

My  records  showed  that  I  was  in  Chicago  on  February  6 
and  7,  and  I  assumed  that  it  would  be  charged  that  I  made  the 
alleged  call  on  one  of  these  dates,  though  neither  of  them  fell 
within  the  period  of  either  editorial.  I  was  able  to  show  all  of 
my  movements  on  these  two  days,  during  every  hour  from  the 
time  I  left  my  home  in  Evanston  until  I  returned  at  night.  My 
witnesses  were  gentlemen  whose  word  could  not  be  questioned, 
and  the  evidence  contained  in  the  record  tells  why  no  serious 
attempt  was  made  to  select  one  of  these  dates. 

The  diary  of  the  movements  of  Mr.  McCormick  and  Mr. 
Bancroft  proved  a  serious  stumbling  block  to  the  persecution. 
This  diary  showed  that  Mr.  McCormick  was  absent  from  Chi- 
cago from  February  5  to  March  10,  and  consequently  Funk 
could  not  have  held  his  alleged  conversation  with  Mr.  McCor- 
mick on  the  February  dates  when  I  was  in  Chicago.  As  will 
later  be  seen,  Funk  and  his  friends  were  forced  by  that  diary — 
a  diary  offered  by  them  to  fix  a  new  date — to  abandon  all  dates 
when  Funk,  McCormick  and  Bancroft  were  not  simultaneously 
in  Chicago.  This  proved  very  distressing  to  Funk. 


99 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

AS  TO  THE  15TH,  16TH  AND  17TH  OF  JANUARY,  1911 

I  was  in  Chicago  on  those  days,  leaving  for  Washington  on 
the  I7th.  Funk's  side  claimed  that  on  the  day  of  the  alleged 
second  talk  Mr.  Bancroft  was  in  Chicago  and  that  on  that 
same  day  Funk  told  Bancroft  about  it,  so  that  that  second 
talk  would  have  to  be  on  some  day  when  Mr.  Bancroft  was  in 
Chicago.  But  the  records  and  witnesses  produced  by  Funk's 
side  showed  that  Mr.  Bancroft  was  not  in  Chicago  on  the 
I5th,  i6th  and  i/th  of  January,  and  had  not  been  here  for 
some  time  before  that  and  did  not  return  here  until  after  those 
dates.  I  also  proved  conclusively  that  the  alleged  second  talk 
could  not  have  occurred  on  the  I5th,  i6th  or  i7th.  In  fact, 
Funk's  side  never  claimed  that  that  second  talk  occurred  on 
either  the  I5th,  i6th  or  I7th.  Notwithstanding  all  this,  one 
member  of  the  Board  insinuated  that  possibly  this  talk  might 
have  happened  on  one  of  those  days.  But  the  moment  his 
attention  was  called  to  the  above  facts  in  evidence  he  reluctantly 
had  to  drop  that. 

AS  TO  THE  EDITORIAL  ON  JANUARY  20,  1911 

After  being  compelled,  by  the  irresistible  force  of  the  evi- 
dence which  I  introduced,  to  abandon  one  ground  after  an- 
other with  reference  to  the  time  of  the  alleged  second  talk, 
Funk's  counsel  finally  settled  upon  the  sole  proposition  that  it 
was  not  the  editorial  of  February  15,  but  the  one  of  January 
20,  which  fixed  the  date  of  the  alleged  second  talk. 

At  the  close  of  the  hearing  held  on  February  15,  1912,  in 
which  I  so  successfully  established  my  absence  from  the  city 
during  the  period  from  February  7  to  March  5,  the  Chairman 
made  the  following  announcement :  "So  far  as  I  can  foresee, 
the  next  session  of  the  Board  will  discuss  the  editorial  of 
January  20  and  its  bearing  upon  this  general  situation.  .  .  . 
It  came  up  unexpectedly  at  the  end  of  the  hearing  one  day  and 
in  the  mind  of  the  Board  and  some  members  of  the  Board  it 
ought  to  be  investigated  for  what  there  is  in  it.  I  am  not  able 
to  say  what  will  develop  after  the  next  hearing,  except  it  will 
regard  this  editorial  of  the  2oth  of  January."  (619)  There- 

100 


EDWARD  MINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

upon  the  Board  adjourned  to  February  17,  1912,  at  which  time 
a  change  of  counsel  for  Funk  occurred  and  Mr.  Frank  J. 
Loesch  appeared  to  represent  him  in  lieu  of  Mr.  Scott. 

Mr.  Loesch,  in  stating  that  he  appeared  as  the  attorney  for 
Mr.  Funk,  said  (620)  : 

"I  understand  that  the  taking  of  further  testimony  is 
narrowed  under  some  ruling  of  your  committee  in  the 
past  to  any  further  information  or  facts  which  Mr.  Funk 
may  have  to  present  to  throw  light  upon  the  subject  of 
a  certain  editorial  published  February  15,  or  prior  thereto; 
a  controversy  especially  relating  to  a  certain  meeting  be- 
tween— a  certain  call  that  Mr.  Hines  made  at  Mr.  Funk's 
office.  Now  I  am  prepared  to  present  evidence  to  the 
Board  to  throw  light  upon  that  subject.  We  are  ready  to 
go  ahead." 

"THE  CHAIRMAN  :  Well,  Mr.  Funk  is  really  recalled 
here  at  the  suggestion  of  the  Board  to  see  if  further  light 
can  be  obtained  upon  the  question  that  has  arisen  with  ref- 
erence to  the  second  interview  which  he  has  testified  to 
with  Mr.  Hines.  .  .  .  The  testimony  as  submitted 
refers  to  the  editorial  of  the  i$th  of  February,  ign,  and 
at  the  hearing  of  the  Board  it  was  assumed  that  that  was 
the  only  editorial,  and  that  was  the  date,  and  the  only  edi- 
torial to  which  reference  was  made.  It  appeared  at  the 
last  meeting,  however,  we  unexpectedly,  I  think  to  mem- 
bers of  the  Board  at  any  rate,  were  informed  that  there 
was  another  editorial  on  the  20th  of  January  which  ap- 
peared in  the  Record-Herald,  and  which  also  referred  to 
a  $100,000  fund.  And  it  is  for  the  purpose  of  having  Mr. 
Funk,  if  he  can,  throw  any  light  upon  those  two  editorials, 
which  of  them,  if  either,  he  attempted  to  use  for  the  pur- 
pose of  fixing  the  date  of  the  second  interview,  or  any 
other  explanation  he  may  make  to  throw  light  on  the  ques- 
tion as  to  the  date  of  the  second  alleged  interview  with 
reference  to  those  two  editorials." 

"MR.  LOESCH  :  I  understand,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  is 
what  is  before  the  Board.  Mr.  Scott  having — after  the 
last  hearing,  I  believe,  Mr.  Scott  found  an  editorial,  which 
will  probably — which  it  will  probably  be  developed  here 
before  the  Board,  was  the  editorial  which  Mr.  Funk  had  in 
mind.  I  think  I  may  proceed  with  the  examination  as  be- 
fore." (620-622.) 

101 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

FUNK  AGAIN  SHIFTS 

Mr.  Funk  was  then  called  and  gave  evidence  to  square  him- 
self with  the  new  situation  with  reference  to  the  January  20 
editorial,  testifying  that  it  was  a  day  or  two  after  the  publica- 
tion of  that  editorial  that  I  appeared  at  his  office  and  had  this 
alleged  second  talk  with  him,  notwithstanding  that  he  had 
under  oath  most  unequivocally  placed  himself  upon  record  both 
before  the  Helm  Committee  and  the  Dillingham  Committee 
that  it  was  after  February  15,  1911,  that  I  called  at  his  office 
and  had  this  alleged  talk  with  him,  and  that  it  was  within  a  day 
or  two  after  the  publication  of  the  Record-Herald  editorial  of 
February  15,  1911. 

Before  the  Helm  Committee  he  was  questioned  specifically 
with  reference  to  the  editorial  of  February  15,  1911.  He  knew 
that  it  was  that  editorial  "that  brought  Kohlsaat  to  Springfield" 
to  testify  before  the  Helm  Committee,  and  he  specifically  testi- 
fied that  the  editorial  that  he  had  in  mind  was  that  very  "edito- 
rial that  brought  Kohlsaat  to  Springfield."  Copies  of  that 
editorial  were  in  the  hands  of  the  members  of  the  Helm  Com- 
mittee, and  a  copy  of  the  same  was  incorporated  in  the  printed 
proceedings  of  that  Committee. 

With  two  months  intervening  between  his  testifying  before 
the  Helm  Committee  and  his  appearing  before  the  Dillingham 
Committee,  during  which  time  everybody  became  acquainted 
with  the  contents  of  that  editorial,  he  again  went  on  oath 
before  the  Dillingham  Committee  in  Washington  and  was 
questioned  and  requestioned  by  attorneys  on  both  sides  and 
by  various  members  of  the  Committee,  with  reference  to  the 
time  of  my  alleged  second  talk  with  him,  and  he  positively 
and  without  qualification  testified  that  it  was  a  day  or  two 
after  the  publication  of  that  editorial  that  I  had  this  alleged 
second  talk  with  him.  Copies  of  the  Feb.  15  editorial  were 
likewise  in  Washington  before  the  Dillingham  Committee,  and 
a  copy  of  it  is  incorporated  in  the  published  proceedings  of 
that  Committee. 

Copies  of  that  famous  editorial  were  in  the  Congressional 
Library  in  Washington,  in  every  library  of  consequence  in  the 

102 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE  U.   L.   CLUB 

nation,  in  every  newspaper  reference  room.  Funk,  the  insti- 
gator and  the  central  figure  of  that  editorial,  was  seemingly 
the  one  man  who  never  had  seen  or  read  it. 

Not  only  did  Funk  at  this  late  date — and  after  the  testimony 
had  all  been  put  in  and  the  hearings  before  the  Board 
apparently  closed — come  in  and  radically  change  his  story  in 
the  face  of  his  sworn  testimony  as  above  indicated  before  the 
Helm  and  Dillingham  Committees,  but  he  nonchalantly  disre- 
garded his  testimony  given  at  the  secret  session  of  the  Board 
on  Nov.  13,  1911,  in  which  he  stated  that  the  second  alleged 
talk  occurred  just  a  few  months  after  the  first  talk;  four  or 
five  months  after  the  first  talk ;  in  the  fall  of  the  same  year  as 
the  first  talk;  that  it  was  at  the  time  that  he  first  spoke  to 
Kohlsaat  about  it  (which  was  before  any  editorial  had 
appeared  upon  the  subject)  ;  that  it  was  before  the  investiga- 
tion of  the  Burrows  Committee  (which  was  also  before  any 
editorial  in  question  had  been  published),  and,  as  stated  by 
him  before  the  Dillingham  Committee  at  one  time,  that  it  was 
just  "the  other  day  after  the  first  talk." 

RECORD-BREAKING  RECKLESSNESS 

In  thus  sweeping  aside  his  testimony  as  previously  given 
before  the  Board,  he  necessarily  swept  out  of  consideration 
the  argument  of  his  former  attorney  Mr.  Scott,  which,  as  I 
have  shown,  was  based  upon  that  testimony  as  given  by  him 
at  the  secret  hearing.  Did  the  parties  interested  in  having 
me  excluded  from  the  Club  feel  that  the  entire  case  as  made 
by  Funk's  testimony  as  it  originally  stood  was  too  flimsy  and 
unbelievable  to  afford  a  pretext  for  my  expulsion,  and  at  the 
eleventh  hour  made  this  radical  shift? 

As  soon  as  Funk  took  the  witness  stand  his  new  counsel 
showed  him  the  editorial  of  Feb.  15,  1911,  and  asked  him  when 
he  first  saw  it,  and  he  calmly  and  coolly  swore  that  the  first 
time  that  he  ever  saw  that  editorial  was  when  it  was  called  to 
his  attention  by  Mr.  Bancroft  (the  attorney  for  his  company) 
"upon  my  return  home  after  the  last  Union  League  hearing." 
(623) 

103 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE  U.  L.   CLUB 

WPw*^^ 

I  ask  you  in  all  candor,  can  you  believe  this  remarkable 
statement,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  this  man  had  been  before 
the  Helm  Committee  and  the  Dillingham  Committee  and  had 
given  his  testimony  under  oath  in  regard  to  this  alleged  second 
talk,  and  had  fixed  the  time  of  that  alleged  talk  with  reference 
to  this  specific  editorial  of  Feb.  15 f  Don't  you  believe  that 
before  he  gave  his  testimony  on  either  of  those  occasions,  and 
while  he  was  searching  his  mind  and  conferring  with  others 
in  reference  to  the  fixing  of  the  time  of  this  alleged  second 
talk,  that  he  not  only  saw  the  editorial  of  Feb.  15  but  that  he 
carefully  examined  and  read  the  same? 

As  reckless  in  testimony  as  the  records  show  this  man  to  be, 
do  you  believe  that  he  could  be  so  foolishly  reckless  or  that 
the  attorneys  representing  the  prosecution  would  be  so  care- 
less as  to  permit  him  to  take  the  witness  stand  and  testify  with 
reference  to  this  editorial  of  Feb.  15  without  first  showing  it 
to  him  and  having  him  familiarize  himself  with  its  contents? 
Can  you  believe  that  this  man,  without  having  seen  that 
editorial,  would  go  upon  the  witness  stand  or  be  permitted  to 
do  so  and  select  this  specific  editorial  as  "the  editorial  that 
brought  Kohlsaat  to  Springfield,"  when  Kohlsaat  and  every- 
body else  connected  with  the  prosecution  asserted  that  "the 
editorial  that  brought  Kohlsaat  to  Springfield"  was  the 
editorial  of  Feb.  15,  1911? 

Can  you  believe  that  this  man  (having  intelligence  enough 
to  be  the  manager  of  a  large  corporation)  and  who  had  taken 
the  stand  of  a  bitter  partisan  in  the  Lorimer  matter  could  be 
in  ignorance  of  the  contents  of  the  editorial  of  Feb.  15,  which 
by  that  time  was  familiar  to  the  reading  public,  and  which 
everybody  knew  was  the  editorial  that  brought  Kohlsaat  to 
Springfield  ? 

SOME  BEWILDERING  CHANGES 

In  addition  to  the  many  instances  of  the  reckless  swearing 
and  shiftiness  of  this  man  as  revealed  so  far  in  the  various 
records,  I  call  your  attention  to  another  specimen  right  in  this 
connection  of  Funk's  entire  willingness  to  change  his  testi- 
mony from  one  thing  to  another  in  compliance  with  what  he 

104 


EDWARD   HINES   TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

thinks  is  required  of  him  in  order  to  gain  a  point.  Thus,  at 
one  time  before  the  Board  he  said  (p.  624)  :  "The  editorial 
of  Jan.  20  *  *  *  is  familiar  to  me,  but  I  would  not 
undertake  to  say  that  I  remember  specifically  having  seen  that 
editorial  shortly  after  Mr.  Mines'  visit,  but  I  can  say  in  that 
connection  that  I  have  no  recollection  of  having  seen  the  Feb. 
15  editorial.  *  *  *  But  I  do  not  undertake  to  say — I  do 
not  want  to  be  understood  as  saying  that  I  remember  specific- 
ally that  that  (the  Jan.  20  editorial)  is  the  editorial  I  saw  a 
few  days  after  Mr.  Hines'  visit."  Later  on  Funk's  attention 
was  again  called  to  the  editorial  of  Jan.  20,  and  this  occurred : 

Q.  Well,  giving  now  your  best  recollection  as  to 
connecting  the  interview  of  Mr.  Hines  in  your  office  in 
the  Harvester  Building,  would  you  say  that  that  was  the 
editorial  which  you  saw  shortly  after  that? 

MR.  FUNK:  I  would  not  say  specifically  that  it  is.  I 
would  say  that  it  is  my  impression  that  it  is,  but  I  have  not 
sufficiently  sharp  recollection  of  that  to  justify  me  in  say- 
ing specifically  that  is  the  editorial.  (625) 

Funk's  counsel  was  doing  his  best  to  get  Funk  to  swear  that 
that  was  the  editorial.  Funk  on  those  two  occasions  evidently 
did  not  realize  that.  His  counsel,  apparently  discouraged  by 
Funk's  failure  to  respond  to  the  requirement,  dropped  the 
matter  for  the  time  being,  but  some  time  afterward  tried  it 
again,  with  this  desired  result: 

Q.  From  the  testimony  you  have  given  referring  to 
an  editorial,  from  which  editorial  you  fix  your  best  recol- 
lection of  the  interview  with  Mr.  Hines,  what  is  now  your 
best  impression  as  to  which  editorial  you  referred  to? 

A.  It  is  my  distinct  recollection  that  it  was  the  editorial 
of  Jan.  20,  191 1 !  (p.  629.) 

What  do  you  think  of  that?  And  he  later  was  forced  to 
retreat  and  to  say  that  he  would  not  attempt  so  to  specify  it. 

Another  thing:  At  all  times  when  Funk  gave  testimony 
with  reference  to  any  editorial  as  a  basis  for  the  reckoning  of 
the  time  of  the  alleged  second  talk,  he  without  exception  said 

105 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE  U.  L.  CLUB 

that  it  was  within  a  day  or  two  after  or  shortly  after  such 
editorial,  and  in  this  Union  League  Qub  hearing-  this  occurred : 

Q.  You  have  always  said  that  you  know  that  this 
visit  of  Mr.  Hines  was  after  the  publication  of  the 
Record-Herald  editorial  ? 

MR.  FUNK  :    That  has  been  my  impression,  yes,  sir.*  *  * 

A  MEMBER:  May  I  ask,  do  you  undertake  to  say  defi- 
nitely and  positively  *  *  *  whether  Mr.  Hines'  visit 
was  before  the  publication  or  after? 

MR.  FUNK:    No.    *    *    * 

Always  having  claimed  under  oath  that  it  was  after  an 
editorial,  he  insinuates  now  that  it  might  have  been  before. 
And  yet  Funk  and  the  prosecution  have  always  claimed  I  saw 
an  editorial  and  because  of  that  went  to  see  Funk.  Another 
illustration  of  Funk's  ability  and  willingness  to  shift  position 
under  the  slightest  pretext. 

THE  FATAL  DIARIES 

After  the  introduction  of  the  editorial  of  Jan.  20,  Funk's 
side  undertook  to  fix  that  very  date,  Jan.  20,  as  the  date  of  the 
alleged  second  talk.  To  do  this  they  called  Clyde  S.  Still  well, 
the  present  personal  Secretary  to  the  general  counsel  of  the 
International  Harvester  Company,  and  who  in  January,  1911, 
was  Secretary  to  the  President  of  that  Company.  This  young 
man  had  with  him  a  diary  and  it  showed  certain  conferences 
of  Mr.  McCormick  with  Mr.  Funk  and  others,  and  he  was 
asked  whether  he  had  "any  memorandum,  and  if  so  you  may 
read  them  opposite  to  the  dates  which  they  are  written." 

A.  January  20,  conference  C.  H.  McC. ;  C.  S.  F. ; 
E.  A.  B. ;  L.  case. 

Q.     Interpret  those,  please. 

A.  Cyrus  H.  McCormick ;  C.  S.  Funk;  E.  A.  Bancroft; 
Lorimer  case. 

Q.     "L.  case"  stands  for  "Lorimer  case"  ? 

A.    According  to  my  records,  yes.    (p.  677.)     *     *     * 

Q.     January  20,  what  does  it  show  there? 

A.     Conference  C.  H.  McC,  C.  S.  Funk,  E.  A.  B. 

Q.    Any  other  on  that  day  ? 

106 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE  U.   L.   CLUB 

A.     No,  sir. 

Q.  You  have  some  character,  stenographic  character, 
there  to  show  conference  and  then — as  a  joinder  on  the 
name  "C.  H.  McC,  C.  S.  F.  and  E.  A.  B."— you  have  two 
shorthand  characters.  What  are  those? 

A.     "Lorimer  case." 

Q.     When  did  you  make  that  entry? 

A.     On  that  day. 

Q.    At  whose  direction?    Anybody's  direction? 

A.     No.  (684-5.) 

Q.     How  did  you  come  to  make  it? 

A.  Why,  sometimes  in  the  course  of  this  book — some- 
times I  have  put  down  the  subject  of  conferences  with 
Mr.  McCormick  and  Mr.  Funk  and  any  one  else  who 
attended  the  meetings.  I  did  not  always  know  the  sub- 
ject of  their  conference,  and  I  do  not  know  why  I  put 
that  there  except  that  I  must  have  known  the  subject  of 
that  conference,  and  I  think  that  is  the  only  entry  in  this 
book  in  shorthand.  And — because  it  was  not  my  practice 
to  put  these  things  in  here  in  shorthand.  And  the  only 
reason  I  could  put  that  in  shorthand  was  I  did  not  want 
anybody  else  to  know  what  it  was,  of  course. 

Q.     Was  it  made  on  that  day  ? 

A.    Yes.     *     *     * 

Q.  Are  there  any  other  conferences  that  day  in  which 
Mr.  Funk  participated  shown? 

A.     None.     *     *     * 

Q.  Mr.  Stilwell,  on  January  20  you  have  made  a 
shorthand  memorandum,  as  I  understand  it? 

A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Which  you  say  now  indicates  "L.  C."  That  is  the 
shorthand  notes,  the  full  name  being  the  Lorimer  case? 

A.     Well,  it  is  written  out  in  shorthand,  yes,  sir. 

Q.    The  name  is  written  out? 

A.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.     Were  you  present  at  that  conference,  Mr.  Stillwell  ? 

A.     No,  sir. 

Q.  Who  gave  to  you  the  information  that  the  Lorimer 
case  had  been  talked  about? 

A.  I  don't  know,  sir.  I  haven't  any  recollection  on  the 
subject  at  all.  *  *  *  (697) 

He  said  that  sometimes  when  he  would  be  notified  to  call  a 

107 


EDWARD   MINES   TO   THE    U.    L.    CLUB 

conference  the  subject  matter  of  the  conference  would  be  told 
him  by  Mr.  McCormick,  and  he  was  asked  this  question : 

Q.  Did  he  give  you  the  subject  of  the  conference? 
That  is,  did  he  say  what  it  was  about,  any  more  than  just 
to  mention  the  name  of  Lorimer,  if  you  can  now  recall  it  ? 

A.     No,  I  haven't  any  recollection  of  it. 

Q.  That  entry  does  not  refresh  your  recollection  fur- 
ther than  a  mere  entry,  does  it? 

A.    It  does  not  refresh  my  recollection  at  all. 

Q.  It  was  made  at  the  same  time  as  the  rest  of  the 
entries  ? 

A.     Sir? 

Q.  Was  it  made  at  the  same  time  as  the  rest  of  the 
diary  was  made? 

A.     Yes,  sir.     (698) 

(If  the  entry  did  not  refresh  his  recollection  at  all,  how 
could  he  tell  when  it  was  entered,  and  how  could  he  say  that 
it  was  entered  at  the  same  time  as  the  other  entries  which 
applied  to  different  dates  than  this  one?  It  was  evident  he 
could  not,  and  afterwards  his  claim  in  this  respect  was  re- 
pudiated by  Funk's  counsel.) 

FUNK  HAS  A  RIVAL  IN  HIS  OWN  OFFICE 

Shortly  after  these  statements  were  made,  the  Board 
adjourned  to  eight  o'clock  in  the  evening,  when  Mr.  Stillwell 
resumed  his  testimony,  and  Funk's  attorney  asked  him  when 
he  had  last  seen  those  stenographic  characters  before  "this 
morning,"  and  he  answered  : 

A.  A  short  time  before  this  when  I  made  up  that 
memorandum  of  Mr.  Bancroft's  movements.  *  *  *  I 
do  not  have  any  recollection  of  seeing  it  at  all  before  that. 
Apparently  it  is  made  in  blacker  ink  than  possibly  any 
other  letter  except  E.  A.  B. 

Q.  Would  that  indicate  to  you  that  it  was  made  at 
any  later  date? 

A.  No,  sir.  (This  means  that  it  was  not  entered 
later  than  the  2Oth.) 

Q.  Have  you  any  independent  recollection  of  it  at  all 
as  to  when  it  was  made? 

108 


EDWARD   MINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

A.     No,  sir;  I  have  not.     *     *     * 

Q.  Are  you  certain  or  not  as  to  whether  that  char- 
acter was  put  there  *  *  *  on  the  2ist  of  January 
or  some  subsequent  time? 

A.  I  feel  certain  they  were  put  there  on  the  2ist 
*  *  *  by  myself.  *  *  *  (703) 

Here  is  a  contradiction  between  what  he  had  said  before  the 
adjournment,  when  he  claimed  that  it  was  entered  on  the  2Oth, 
and  did  not  indicate  that  it  was  entered  at  a  later  date.  The 
witness  further  said : 

Q.  What  memorandum  made  in  the  Lorimer  case, 
what  did  you  have  in  mind  when  you  put  down  the  word 
"case"?  *  *  * 

A.  I  have  no  recollection  except  that  there  was  such 
a  thing  as  the  Lorimer  case. 

Q.  I  notice  also  that  the  ink  on  that  memorandum  is 
a  little  darker  than  the  other  right  on  that  page.  How 
do  you  account  for  that? 

A.    /  cannot  account  for  it.     (708) 

You  will  see  that  a  little  later  on  Funk's  counsel  abandoned 
that  proposition  also  and  shifted  the  date  again  and  made  it 
Jan.  21,  and  Funk's  counsel,  after  I  had  shown  that  I  was  not 
in  Chicago  on  the  2Oth  of  January,  1911,  repudiated  the  cor- 
rectness of  the  entry  indicated  by  the  stenographic  characters 
referred  to,  and  admitted  that  those  stenographic  characters 
must  have  been  entered  at  a  later  date  than  the  witness  testi- 
fied! And  Attorney  Loesch  said  (608)  in  his  argument  to 
the  Board  that  "that  entry  in  the  diary  of  the  2Oth,  that 
shorthand  note  which  to  me  looks  as  if  it  was  made  some  days 
afterwards.  *  *  *  It  is  not  connected  with  the  Hines 
visit,  which  was  not  on  the  day  of  the  editorial  because  it  is 
quite  certain  that  he  was  in  Washington  on  that  day.  *  *  *" 

This  admission  of  Mr.  Loesch's  was  not  made  out  of  any 
spirit  of  fairness  to  me,  but  because  the  indisputable  evidence 
which  I  had  introduced  showing  that  I  was  not  in  Chicago  on 
that  day  annihilated  any  claim  that  this  alleged  second  talk 
occurred  on  the  2Oth  of  January,  and  he  saw  that  he  would 

109 


EDWARD  HIKES  TO  THE  U.   L.   CLUB 

utterly  have  to  abandon  that  proposition.  And  he  did  abandon 
it,  and  again  the  prosecution  shifted  its  ground  and  took  up 
still  another  date  for  the  occurrence  of  this  alleged  second 
talk  as  being  the  2ist  of  January. 

THE  LAST  STAND— JANUARY  21 

On  this  date  the  prosecution  took  their  last  stand.  Their 
stock  of  dates  had  run  out,  and  now  it  was  with  them  the  2ist 
of  January  or  nothing;  and  at  the  conclusion  of  the  hearing 
counsel  again  argued  the  case,  and  (869)  Mr.  Loesch  said: 
"You  can  not  get  away  from  that  interview  as  having  taken 
place  on  the  2ist  of  January!" 

Please  keep  in  mind  that  when  the  prosecution  shifted  its 
ground  and  attempted  to  fix  the  alleged  second  talk  with  ref- 
erence to  the  January  2oth  editorial,  they  produced  for  the  first 
time  diaries  kept  by  the  President's  Secretary,  Mr.  Stillwell, 
which  I  have  heretofore  mentioned.  These  diaries  showed  the 
movements  and  appointments  of  Mr.  McCormick  and  Mr. 
Bancroft.  Funk's  counsel,  to  sustain  his  claim  that  the  alleged 
second  talk  occured  on  the  2ist  day  of  January,  and  that 
there  was  no  escape  from  that  proposition,  in  his  argument 
to  the  Board  (853)  claimed  that  I  went  to  see  Funk  on  the 
morning  of  the  2ist  of  January,  and  that  Funk  was  in 
a  hurry  to  go  into  a  meeting.  "And  now  Funk  was  in  a  hurry. 
As  he  says,  he  was  in  a  hurry  to  go  into  a  meeting.  The  diary 
of  that  day  distinctly  shows  that  Mr.  Funk  had  to  attend  a 
meeting  on  the  2ist  with  Mr.  McCormick." 

This  was  a  distinct  misrepresentation  of  the  evidence.  The 
only  date  stated  in  the  diary  in  reference  to  this  conference 
was  Jan.  20,  and  not  Jan.  21.  When  Stillwell,  the  private 
Secretary,  was  on  the  stand  testifying  in  regard  to  this  diary 
and  the  entries  therein,  this  question  was  put  to  him : 

Q.  What  was  shown  there  on  the  2ist  with  reference 
to  Mr.  Funk? 

THE  CHAIRMAN  :  Confine  your  showing  to  anything 
that  relates  to  Mr.  Funk  in  the  memorandum  there.  *  *  * 

no 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE  U.   L.   CLUB 

A.  There  is  nothing  here  with  Mr.  Funk  on  Jan.  21. 
*  *  *  (686) 

Q.  You  say  there  is  nothing  there  of  any  conference 
with  Mr.  Funk  and  Mr.  McCormick  on  the  2ist? 

A.    No,  sir.     (688) 

Was  not  this  a  deliberate,  intentional  and  wilful  attempt  on 
the  attorney's  part  to  mislead  the  Board?  If  not,  what  was  it? 
If  the  diary  proved  anything  it  was  that  the  conference  was 
held  on  the  20th.  Attorney  Loesch  having  abandoned  that, 
uses  the  same  entry  in  the  diary  to  support  his  claim  that  the 
conference  occurred  on  the  2ist.  But  to  do  that  he  had  falsely 
to  represent  that  the  diary  showed  a  conference  on  the  2ist, 
in  the  face  of  the  fact  that  the  Secretary,  with  the  diary  before 
him,  swore  that  there  was  no  entry  in  the  diary,  and  showed 
that  there  was  no  conference  of  Funk  and  McCormick  on  the 
2  ist,  and  the  diary  itself  shows  the  same  fact. 

SHATTERING  THE  NEW  DATE 

This  latest  dodge  of  the  prosecution  in  jumping  from  the 
2Oth  of  January  to  the  2ist  made  it  necessary  for  me  to  show 
where  I  was  on  the  2ist,  and  although  it  was  late  in  the 
evening  the  Chairman  of  the  Board  directed  that  I  proceed 
with  whatever  evidence  I  had  at  hand  to  meet  the  new  situa- 
tion, thus  invented  and  unexpectedly  thrust  upon  me.  My 
counsel  thereupon  recalled  Mr.  Edward  H.  Thomas  (p.  712) 
who  had  testified  before  in  regard  to  the  record  that  is  kept 
by  him  of  my  absences  out  of  the  city. 

He  was  asked  if  that  record  which  he  kept  showed  where 
I  was  during  the  month  of  January,  1911,  and  he  stated  that 
it  did,  and  that  that  record  and  slips  which  he  produced 
showed  that  on  January  7,  1911,  I  left  for  Washington,  and 
that  on  January  15,  1911,  I  returned  to  Chicago;  that  on 
January  17,  1911,  I  left  for  Washington,  and  that  on  February 
5,  1911,  I  returned  from  Washington  to  Chicago. 

He  showed  from  these  records  and  slips  that  on  the  3rd  of 
January,  1911, 1  left  Chicago  for  St.  Paul,  Duluth  and  Winton, 
Minnesota,  and  returned  to  Chicago  on  the  7th  of  January; 
that  from  January  7  to  January  15  I  was  in  Washington;  that 

111 


EDWARD   HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

from  January  17  to  February  5  I  was  in  New  York  and 
Washington;  that  from  February  7  and  March  5  I  was  in 
Washington  and  the  East,  and  that  from  March  6  to  March 
12  I  was  in  the  West  again.  These  records  and  slips  were 
introduced  in  evidence  before  the  Board,  and  Mr.  Thomas 
testified  that  this  system  of  keeping  a  record  of  my  where- 
abouts goes  back  to  the  year  1894. 

C.  R.  Nelson,  my  secretary  and  stenographer,  who  had  also 
testified  before,  was  again  called  (p.  719),  and  testified  that 
he  accompanied  me  on  the  Washington  trips,  which  are  shown 
on  the  records  testified  to  by  Mr.  Thomas,  and  that  I  was 
absent  from  Chicago  from  January  17  to  February  5,  1911, 
as  shown  by  those  slips.  He  testified  that  he  and  I  arrived 
in  Chicago  from  Washington  on  Sunday  morning,  the  5th  of 
February,  and  that  we  remained  here  on  Sunday  and  Monday 
and  part  of  Tuesday,  when  we  again  returned  to  Washington, 
which  would  be  on  February  7,  and  that  we  again  returned  to 
Chicago  on  the  5th  of  March,  1911.  He  also  testified  to  the 
expense  accounts  which  he  kept  during  these  periods,  and 
which  were  introduced  in  evidence. 

I  also  took  the  witness-stand  that  evening,  and  testified 
(p.  786)  that  I  left  Chicago  on  January  17,  1911,  and  returned 
on  February  5,  1911,  and  that  I  was  not  at  any  time  in  Chicago 
between  those  two  dates.  I  stated  (p.  788)  that  I  arrived  in 
Chicago  on  the  morning  of  February  5,  and  was  here  all  day 
the  6th,  and  left  the  afternoon  of  the  7th.  I  showed  by  tele- 
grams sent  and  received  by  me  while  in  Washington  that  there 
was  a  Continental  and  Commercial  National  Bank  annual 
meeting  on  the  7th  of  February,  and  it  was  for  the  purpose  of 
being  present  at  that  meeting  that  I  returned  from  Washington 
to  Chicago  on  February  5  ;  that  I  left  Chicago  for  Washington 
on  the  2 145  P.  M.  train  of  February  7,  and  did  not  return  to 
Chicago  again  until  March  5,  1911. 

UNANSWERABLE  PROOF 

I  introduced  in  evidence  certain  business  telegrams  received 
by  me  in  Washington  on  the  i8th  and  I9th  of  January,  that 

112 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE  U.   L.   CLUB 

were  sent  by  Mr.  C.  F.  Wiehe,  and  a  telegram  sent  by  me  to 
Mr.  Wiehe  on  the  I9th  of  January,  while  I  was  at  the  New 
Willard  Hotel  in  Washington,  D.  C.  These  telegrams  are  as 
follows : 

(On  Postal  Telegraph  blank:) 

22     Pd    86 

5  PO     104    PK    VS 

January  18,  1911. 
Edward  Mines, 

C|o  New  Willard, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

Cook  here  claims  you  were  to  give  him  your  decision. 
Wants  see  me  this  afternoon.  What  do  you  intend  doing 
with  him? 

C.  F.  WIEHE. 
(On  Postal  Telegraph  blank:) 

6  Wis     146    PK    HF  50    pd     1.70 

January  19,  1911. 
Edward  Hines, 

C|o  New  Willard  Hotel, 
Washington,  D.  C. 

Can't  hold  Cook  off.  He  will  do  something  imme- 
diately. Figuring  sell  small  holders.  Think  you  should 
tell  him  you  will  or  can't  do  anything.  Offers  take  year's 
note  five  per  cent  clearing  up  Seine  River  stock  in  all 
about  forty-seven  hundred  snares.  Think  shall  buy  it 
get  rid  of  him. 

C.  F.  WIEHE. 

(On  Western  Union  Night  Letter  blank:) 

4    Wu.  K.     59    Coll    Letter    2oth 

Washington,  D.  C.,  Jany.  igth-n. 
C.  F.  Wiehe, 

Chgo. 

Tell  Cook  you  expect  I  be  back  so  can  telephone  Sat- 
urday. Say  you  cannot  possibly  do  anything  until  you 
get  hold  of  me  but  judging  our  recent  purchase  St.  Croix 
don't  see  how  we  can  do  anything.  Suggest  possibly 
company  buying  stock  at  annual  meeting  First  February. 
Will  try  telephone  you  tomorrow  from  New  York  ten 
o'clock  western  time  office. 

EDW.  HINES. 
8.25  A.  M. 
113 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE  U.  L.   CLUB 

TELEGRAMS  OF  THE  CRUCIAL  DATE 

I  also  introduced  in  evidence  a  telegram  sent  by  me  on 
January  21  from  Washington  to  E.  H.  Thomas,  which  was 
endorsed  by  the  Telegraph  Company  as  being  received  in 
Chicago  at  2 125  P.  M.,  which  telegram  is  as  follows :  (795) 

(On  blank  sheet:) 

9    Wu.    K.    26  Collect. 

Washington,  D.  C,  Jany.  2ist-n. 
E.  H.  Thomas,  Chgo. 

Have  you  sent  daily  reminders  to  Washington  Senate  ? 
If  not  send  by  express  care  New  Willard  and  about  fifty 
extra.  Will  try  distribute  from  here. 

EDWARD  HINES. 
2.25  P.  M. 

And  I  also  introduced  in  evidence  a  telegram  in  reply  to 
the  above,  sent  by  Mr.  Thomas  to  myself  at  Washington  on 
January  21,  as  follows:  (795) 

3    PO    240    PK    ff     13  Pd    59 

Jan.  2ist,  1911. 
Edward  Hines, 

C|o  New  Willard  Hotel,  Washington,  D.  C. 
Reminders  sent  January  twelfth  to  Chas.  E.  Ward  then 
via  American  Express  tracing. 

EDWARD  H.  THOMAS. 
Chg  a|c. 

The  "Daily  Reminders"  mentioned  in  these  telegrams  are 
diaries  prepared  and  circulated  by  our  company  for  advertising 
purposes,  and  are  popular  with  those  who  are  methodical  in 
recording  engagements  and  important  daily  happenings. 

I  also  introduced  in  evidence  a  telegram  sent  to  me  and 
which  I  received  at  Washington  on  January  21,  as  follows: 

(796) 

V    205     CH    AP    34 

Jan.  21,  1911,  2:50  P.  M. 
H  I  Chicago,  111.    21. 
Edward  Hines, 

C|o  New  Willard  Hotel,  Washington,  D.  C. 
Cloquet  wires  if  Virginia  Rainy  Lake  meeting  will  be 
held  first  or  postponed.     Answer  Cloquet  Lumber  Co., 

114 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

Cloquet  direct.     Judge  Cochrane  desires  to  know  when 
Hines  meeting  will  be  held  he  will  be  here  Monday. 

EDWARD  HINES  LBR.  Co. 
(Pencil  figures:     "464    2.53.") 

Also  another  telegram  which  I  received  on  January  21  in 
Washington,  as  follows:  (796) 

i     PO    K    5    HK    VM     13    pd    59 

Jan.  2  ist,  1911. 
Edward  Hines, 

C|o  New  Willard  Hotel,  Washington,  D.  C. 
Bronson  Portland  wires  Ostrander  advises  of  important 
wire  please  repeat  as  not  received. 

EDWARD  HINES  LUMBER  Co. 
Chg  A|c. 

This  series  of  telegrams  show  upon  their  face  that  they 
were  in  the  regular  course  of  business,  and  that  my  business 
force  in  Chicago  knew  I  was  in  Washington  and  for  that 
reason  were  telegraphing  me  there,  and  my  replies  showed 
that  I  was  there,  thus  establishing  that  fact  beyond  all  question. 

PILING  PROOF  ON  PROOF 

I  also  produced  and  introduced  in  evidence  a  memorandum 
dated  January  22,  addressed  "Mr.  Law."  I  dictated  that  and 
showed  that  I  dictated  it  at  Washington.  It  is  as  follows  (on 
the  "New  Willard"  letter-head,  which  was  the  name  of  the 
hotel  at  which  I  was  stopping  in  Washington)  : 

Washington,  D.  C.,  Jan.  22,  1911. 
Mr.  Law : 

Please  make  record  of  the  attached  and  put  on  sheets 
for  my  book,  forwarding  to  me  here  if  I  do  not  reach 
Chicago  the  first  of  the  week. 

Yours  very  truly, 

EDWARD  HINES.     (797) 

This  is  a  memorandum  that  I  made  the  same  Sunday  that 
I  went  to  Baltimore  (as  will  hereafter  appear  from  the 
evidence),  and  which  I  left  for  the  guidance  of  Mr.  Law. 

I  also  introduced  in  evidence  the  following  telegram  which 
I  received  at  Washington  on  January  23,  1911 :  (798) 

US 


EDWARD  H1NES  TO  THE  U.   L.   CLUB 

January  23,  1911. 
Edward  Hines, 

Care  New  Willard  Hotel,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Cusson  Virginia  wires  Hornby  California  wishes  know 
positive  date  meeting.  Lindsay  says  thinks  Weyerhaueser 
likes  have  meeting  tenth  fifteenth  so  Hornby  have  more 
time  west.  We  ready  first.  Wire  Lindsay  Duluth  today 
your  decision. 

EDWARD  HIKES  LUMS.  Co. 

Chg  A|c. 

In  compliance  with  the  last  mentioned  telegram  to  me,  I 
on  the  same  day  from  Washington  sent  Mr.  Lindsay  a  telegram 
which  I  introduced  in  evidence,  as  follows:  (798) 

9    as     f     1.25     p 

Jan.  23,  1911,  Washington,  D.  C. 
Geo.  F.  Lindsay, 

Terrey  Bldg.,  Duluth. 

Notify  Cloquet  telegraph  Hornby  postpone  annual 
meeting  Virginia  until  February  fifteenth. 

EDW.  HINES. 
(Notation  on  same:     "48    c.") 

And  on  the  next  day  (799)  I  received  another  telegram 
from  George  F.  Lindsay  in  acknowledgment  of  the  one  I  had 
sent  him,  which  I  also  introduced  in  evidence,  as  follows: 

V    73    CH    LZ    24 

Duluth,  Minn.,  24  Jan.  24,  1911,  11.45  A.  M. 
Mr.  Edw.  Hines, 
Washington,  D.  C. 

Telegram  advising  postponement  annual  meeting  Vir- 
ginia to  Feby.  fifteenth  and  received  and  proper  notices 
covering  same  are  today  being  sent  out  above  duplicate 
Chicago. 

GEO.  F.  LINDSAY. 

(Notations  on  same:     "Jan-  24,     n     11.45  A.  M. 
See  if  Ans.  11.54  a.  m.     1155     214     1150.") 

In  addition  to  the  foregoing  telegrams  I  introduced  in 
evidence  before  the  Board  scores  of  telegrams  and  letters  sent 
and  received  by  me  daily  in  the  usual  routine  of  business 
during  the  entire  period  from  the  time  I  left  for  Washington 

116 


EDWARD   H1NES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

on  January  17,  1911,  until  my  return  to  Chicago  upon  the 
5th  of  February  (some  of  which  documents  are  to  be  found 
in  the  record  from  page  792  to  page  831).  All  these  showed 
the  usual  course  of  business  transacted  with  and  by  me  when 
I  was  absent  from  Chicago,  and  if  any  of  those  telegrams 
were  not  correct  it  was  very  easy  for  the  prosecution  to  have 
shown  it  by  the  records  of  the  telegraph  companies. 

This  concluded  the  evidence  again,  and  the  hour  being  late 
on  Saturday  evening,  an  adjournment  was  taken  to  12  o'clock 
M.  the  next  day,  Sunday,  February  18,  1911. 

LOESCH  DISCOVERS  "A  MOUNTAIN  PEAK" 

Upon  the  convening  of  the  Board  the  next  day,  Mr.  Loesch 
in  behalf  of  the  prosecution  made  the  opening  argument.  His 
argument  was  on  an  entirely  different  theory  from  the  argu- 
ment made  by  his  predecessor,  Mr.  Scott,  when  the  case  had 
been  before  closed. 

Mr.  Scott,  you  will  remember,  argued  that  this  alleged 
second  talk  occurred  a  few  months  after  the  first  talk  at  the 
Union  League  Club  (which  was  May  27,  1909),  or  "four  or 
five  months  after,"  or  at  the  time  Funk  "first  spoke  to 
Kohlsaat"  about  the  matter,  and  which  was  not  and  could  not 
have  been  connected  in  any  manner  with  any  editorial. 

However,  under  the  new  case  that  the  prosecution  attempted 
to  make  at  the  last  moment  by  the  springing  of  the  January  20 
editorial  and  recalling  Funk  to  have  him  change  his  former 
testimony  to  meet  that  new  situation,  Mr.  Loesch  stated  at  the 
very  outset  that  "it  (the  January  20  editorial)  is  a  mountain 
peak,  because  around  that  centers  the  truth  or  falsity  of  Mr. 
Funk's  statement  applicable  to  the  controversy."  (841)  "We 
have  fixed  the  editorial  of  January  20  because  we  have  pro- 
duced it  and  the  date  of  its  publication  is  established  and 
it  answers  all  the  conditions  that  Mr.  Funk  had  in  mind  as  he 
testified  here  before  you.  Now,  that  is  the  crucial  point.  It 
was  before  or  it  was  after.  It  was  immediately  after.  Or  it 
was  a  day  or  two  after,  or  it  was  around  that.  You  can  read 

117 


EDWARD  MINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

and  re-read  the  testimony  and  you  will  find  it  always  comes 
back  to  that  point.  Now,  that  is  our  fixed  point." 

Note  that  Mr.  Loesch  repudiates  Funk's  testimony  as  first 
given  before  the  Board  and  Scott's  argument  based  upon  the 
same,  fixing  the  alleged  second  talk  not  later  than  the  early 
fall  of  1909,  and  now  places  the  said  second  talk  about  a  year 
and  a  half  later,  to  fit  in  with  the  editorial  of  January  20, 
1911,  and  Funk's  revised  testimony  in  regard  to  the  same! 

Mr.  Loesch  then  proceeded  to  annihilate  the  sworn  claim 
made  by  Funk  before  the  Helm  and  the  Dillingham  Com- 
mittees, and  to  approve  of  the  honesty  and  truth  of  my  claim 
as  made  before  the  Dillingham  Committee  that  I  was  not  in 
Chicago  from  February  7  to  March  5,  1911,  as  follows: 

MR.  LOESCH  :  I  put  in  evidence,  or  we  put  in  evidence 
yesterday,  the  dates  in  Chicago  of  the  times  when  Mr. 
McCormick,  Mr.  Funk  and  Mr.  Bancroft  were  in  Chicago 
together,  and  when  they  were  out  of  Chicago.  And  I 
have  the  diary  here  covering  from  Jan.  15  to  March  10. 
Now,  all  three  men  were  in  Chicago  daily  from  Jan.  15  to 
Feb.  5  at  2.30  P.  M.,  Feb.  5  being  Sunday.  And  Mr. 
McCormick  was  absent  from  Feb.  5  to  March  10.  (845) 

Mr.  Loesch,  however,  did  not  correctly  quote  the  evidence 
as  to  the  presence  of  these  men  in  Chicago  between  these 
dates ;  the  evidence  being  as  testified  to  by  Stillwell,  the  former 
Secretary  of  Mr.  McCormick  and  the  present  Secretary  of  Mr. 
Bancroft,  and  by  the  diaries  of  McCormick  and  Bancroft 
introduced  in  evidence.  The  diary  of  Mr.  Bancroft  shows 
that  he  left  Chicago  on  January  n,  for  New  York,  on  the 
Twentieth  Century  Limited,  and  was  there  on  the  I2th,  i3th 
and  i4th  of  January,  and  was,  on  January  15,  16,  17  and  18, 
in  Washington.  As  to  Mr.  McCormick,  his  diary  shows  that 
on  January  12  he  went  East,  and  that  he  returned  to  Chicago 
at  11:30  a.  m.  January  16.  The  diary  next  shows  that  on 
Sunday,  February  5,  Mr.  McCormick  left  for  New  York,  and 
that  he  did  not  return  until  March  10  (682-683).  Continuing, 
Mr.  Loesch  said: 

1.18 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE  U.   L.   CLUB 

Consequently  the  interview  could  not  have  taken  place 
in  February  at  all.  *  *  *  And  during  that  time  Mr. 
Hines  was  absent  from  Chicago  from  about  the  7th  of 
February  until — into  March.  So  that  with  reference  to 
that  editorial  I  am  assuming  that  the  Hines  alibi  proved 
in  the  case  is  correct  and  shows  continuous  absence  from 
Chicago  from  the  7th  of  February  until  the  4th  of  March. 
(846) 

Mr.  Loesch  then  pursued  his  argument  with  reference  to 
the  January  20  editorial,  and  said: 

Now,  let  us  see  if  we  can  bring  to  mind  the  situation 
with  reference  to  that  editorial.  I  am  going  to  suppose 
that  Mr.  Hines  was  here  on  the  morning  of  Jan.  21.  (848) 

"YOU  HAVE  GOT  TO  ASSUME" 

Mr.  Loesch  then  proceeded  with  his  argument  that  January 
21,  1911,  was  the  date  of  this  alleged  second  talk  with  Funk, 
characterizing  all  of  the  evidence  that  I  had  introduced  show- 
ing that  I  was  not  in  Chicago  at  that  time  as  false;  declaring 
that  my  witnesses  swore  to  lies,  that  the  telegrams  were  manu- 
factured, and  that  I  had  sought  to  make  out  what  he  termed 
a  "fake  alibi" — concluding  a  tirade  against  me  with  a  remark- 
able statement :  "Now,  I  therefore  have  got  to  assume,  gentle- 
men, and  you  have  got  to  assume,  unless  you  want  to  say  that 
Mr.  Funk  is  lying  from  A  to  Z  and  from  Z  back  to  A  again, 
that  that  call  there  from  Mr.  Hines  took  place."  (861) 

What  do  you  think  of  that?  It  was  proper  and  fair — ac- 
cording to  the  Loesch  viewpoint — to  charge  me  and  all  of 
my  witnesses  with  lying,  and  to  call  authenticated  telegrams 
and  other  documents,  sent  in  the  usual  course  of  business, 
"fakes,"  without  the  slightest  thing  in  the  record  to  create 
even  a  suspicion  of  falsity  in  regard  to  them;  but  Funk  must 
be  saved  from  any  such  imputation,  even  though  they  had  to 
resort  to  assumption — and  a  false  assumption,  at  that. 

Mr.  Loesch  having  in  his  argument  definitely  and  unequiv- 
ocally fixed  the  morning  of  January  21,  1911,  as  the  time  of 
this  alleged  second  interview  with  Funk,  I  was,  upon  the  close 
of  his  argument,  again  specifically  interrogated  with  special 

119 


EDWARD  MINES  TO  THE  U.  L.  CLUB 

reference  to  this  time,  and,  although  I  had  not  before  that 
searched  my  mind  or  examined  my  data  with  special  refer- 
ence to  details  of  events  occurring  on  that  particular  day  or 
the  day  following,  with  the  assistance  of  my  pocket  diary  I 
stated  as  follows  to  the  Board:  (872) 

On  the  2ist  day  of  January,  1911,  I  was  in  Washington. 
I  hold  in  my  hand  my  diary  of  1911,  which  I  brought 
from  Evanston  with  me  this  morning,  in  which  is  a  memo- 
randum of  a  telephone  call  from  Dr.  M.  J.  Riordan,  of 
Pikesville,  Md.,  a  suburb  of  Baltimore,  telephone  number 
230  Pikesville.  I  understood  he  was  talking  from  Pikes- 
ville. I  remember  it  distinctly.  He  asked  that  Mrs. 
Hines,  Miss  Moody  (Mrs.  Hines'  niece)  and  myself  come 
to  Pikesville  Sunday  morning  and  take  dinner  with  him 
(872  et  seq).  He  had  invited  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Dupert,  of 
Baltimore,  and  their  niece  to  dinner  also.  The  dinner 
was  to  be  the  next  day,  Sunday,  the  22nd  of  January, 
1911.  Sunday  morning  I  went  to  9  o'clock  service,  and 
had  an  automobile  waiting  at  the  church  door  for  us,  to 
catch  the  10  o'clock  train  for  Baltimore.  Mrs.  Hines  and 
Miss  Moody  were  with  me  at  church.  At  Baltimore  we 
were  met  by  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Dupert,  a  family  whom  we  met 
while  traveling  in  Europe.  Dr.  Riordan,  of  Pikesville, 
Md.,  was  in  charge  of  a  congregation  in  that  parish,  whom 
we  had  also  met  in  Europe.  We  spent  the  greater  part 
of  the  day  at  Dr.  Riordan's  home  in  Pikesville,  15  or  16 
miles  from  Baltimore.  I  remember  distinctly  it  was  an 
extremely  cold  day  and  there  were  several  inches  of  snow, 
and  we  rode  out  in  an  automobile.  I  was  not  in  Chicago 
on  the  2 ist  of  January,  1911.  That  was  physically  impos- 
sible. The  Sunday  of  that  trip  to  Baltimore  and  Pikes- 
ville was  the  only  Sunday  in  my  recollection  that  we  went 
to  9  o'clock  church  when  in  Washington.  We  always  go 
to  10:30  o'clock  church.  Mrs.  Hines  is  very  particular 
about  going  to  church,  and  I  had  to  get  up  early,  and  did 
so.  That  calls  to  my  mind  distinctly  the  occurrence. 

At  this  time  a  very  remarkable  and  audacious  thing  hap- 
pened. 

AN  ANONYMOUS  TELEGRAM  REOPENS  THE  CASE 

Although  the  case  was  again  apparently  closed  and  Mr. 
Loesch  had  made  his  argument,  at  this  point  in  the  proceedings 

120 


EDWARD   HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

he  arose  and  said :  (889)  "I  want  to  read  a  telegram  that  has 
just  come  from  Washington,  addressed  to  Mr.  Funk."  This 
telegram  was  as  follows: 

A    214    NY    GN    74    CA 

Washington,  D.  C,  Feb.   18-12. 
C.  S.  Funk, 

Union  League  Club,  Chicago. 

No  charges  against  E.  H.  at  New  Willard  on  January 
21  or  22  excepting  dinner  charge  signed  by  Mrs.  H.  on 
2  ist  and  two  in-coming  collect  telegrams  on  2ist.  Hotel 
people  say  H.  surely  was  not  here  on  2ist  and  22nd,  be- 
cause there  were  no  charges  for  newspapers,  cigars,  etc., 
against  him  on  those  days,  which  was  always  the  case 
when  he  was  here.  T.  L.  L. 

3  :o8  p.  m. 

Loesch  explained  that  the  initials  T.  L.  L.  were  those  of  a 
friend  of  Funk.  It  appears  that  Funk,  after  the  adjournment 
of  the  Board  about  midnight  the  night  before,  had  requested 
a  couple  of  friends  in  Washington  to  telegraph  him  whether 
I  was  at  the  New  Willard  Hotel  on  the  2ist  of  January,  and 
this  telegram  was  the  reply. 

The  statements  in  this  telegram  were  absolutely  false. 

When  the  charge  was  made  that  the  alleged  second  talk- 
was  in  February,  1911,  I  proved  so  conclusively  (by  what 
Attorney  Loesch  called  an  alibi)  that  I  was  not  in  Chicago  at 
that  time,  that  even  Loesch  admitted  that  my  alibi,  as  he  called 
it,  was  clearly  proved. 

When  they  were  forced  by  reason  of  that  proof  to  change 
the  date  of  the  second  talk,  finally  settling  down  to  Jan.  21, 
1911,  as  the  date  upon  which  they  relied,  I  showed  conclusively 
that  I  was  absent  from  the  city  at  that  time,  whereupon  At- 
torney Loesch,  not  in  the  fair  spirit  of  one  trying  to  get  at  the 
truth,  but  in  the  malicious  and  vindictive  spirit  of  a  persecutor, 
characterized  this  as  a  "fake  alibi."  And  now,  pursuing  the 
same  tactics  that  they  adopted  on  January  18  in  producing  the 
new  editorial  of  January  20  after  the  case  had  been  closed  and 
submitted  to  the  Board  for  decision,  an  anonymous  telegram 
was  introduced  before  the  Board  for  the  purpose  of  proving 

121 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE  U.   L.   CLUB 

that  I  was  not  in  Washington  on  January  21  and  22,  and  that 
the  evidence  that  I  had  introduced  up  to  this  time  bearing 
upon  those  dates  was  false. 

As  you  will  presently  see,  this  malicious  claim  was  false, 
as  I  conclusively  established  by  the  most  convincing  evidence. 

With  the  introduction  of  this  anonymous  telegram  the  case 
was,  at  the  insistence  of  my  counsel,  reopened  for  further  in- 
vestigation, and  I  made  the  following  statement  to  the  Board : 

"I  want  to  say,  gentlemen,  as  far  as  I  am  concerned, 
I  don't  care  how  searching  is  the  extent  of  this  examina- 
tion. I  will  be  very  glad  indeed  to  help.  Any  statements 
I  make  here  to  you  can  all  be  verified  absolutely,  and  it 
will  afford  me  pleasure  to  explain.  I  am  not  going  to  be 
technical  or  complaining  about  anything  this  Board  or 
its  Chairman  ask  me  to  get,  and  I  will  get  it  cheerfully" 

(897). 

"THE  CHAIRMAN  :  I  understood  you  have  a  tender  of 
other  testimony  in  this  case?" 

"MR.  EATON:  Yes,  we  want  to  tender  all  that  Mr. 
Hines  recollects  on  the  memoranda  that  are  now  reason- 
ably embraced  with  reference  to  these  dates,  and  to  add 
to  that  tender  the  offer  to  make  absolutely  specific,  as 
a  man  of  Mr.  Hines'  dealings  can  make  specific,  his 
movements  on  a  particular  day  when  his  attention  is 
called  to  it.  It  was  never  called  to  his  attention  until  the 
argument  this  morning"  (898). 

"THE  CHAIRMAN  :  Mr.  Loesch,  if  you  have  anything, 
a  statement  to  submit  on  anything  that  has  been  intro- 
duced here  by  that  time,  we  will  take  that  up  later." 

"MR.  EATON:  Mr.  Loesch  has  thrown  all  the  light 
he  has." 

"THE  CHAIRMAN  :  That  will  be  supplemented  by  Tues- 
day. That  is  the  emergency." 

Note  the  undisguised  bias  of  Chairman  Sidley.  One  would 
think  he  was  the  authorized  prosecutor  in  the  case,  rather 
than  an  impartial  chairman  of  a  judicial  body.  He  informs 
Mr.  Eaton  that  Mr.  Loesch  will  thrown  more  light  on  Tues- 
day. How  did  he  know?  Was  he  in  the  confidence  of  the 
prosecution  ? 

122 


EDWARD   MINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

UNFAIR  AND  DISCOURTEOUS  TREATMENT 

You  cannot  comprehend  the  astounding  character  of  the 
method  of  procedure  then  adopted  unless  you  read  in  full 
the  record  of  the  proceedings  before  your  Board.  It  was  at 
this  point  that  a  new  degree  of  unfairness  and  discourtesy 
was  attained.  I  should  then  have  realized  that  I  had  absolutely 
no  chance  of  securing  justice  before  such  judges,  and  should 
have  withdrawn  from  their  presence  and  permitted  them  to 
bring  in  their  predetermined  verdict. 

Suppose  that  I,  instead  of  Funk,  had  attempted  to  prove  a 
disputed  point  by  offering  in  evidence  an  anonymous  telegram? 
Suppose  that  I,  instead  of  Funk,  had  asserted  that  such  an 
anonymous  telegram  was  valid  evidence  ?  Suppose  that  I  should 
have  insisted  that  it  be  read  in  the  record,  and  that  Funk 
should  then  be  compelled  to  disprove  such  an  anonymous  tele- 
gram? What  would  have  been  the  attitude  of  the  Board  in 
such  an  event? 

My  insolence  would  have  been  instantly  rebuked,  and  prop- 
erly so.  I  would  have  made  myself  an  object  of  ridicule.  But 
I  submitted  no  such  alleged  "evidence."  I  placed  before 
your  Board  the  verified  copies  of  telegrams  sent  and  received 
in  the  course  of  business,  properly  signed  by  the  senders 
thereof ;  telegrams  whose  plain  import  could  not  be  mistaken ; 
telegrams  from  business  men  who  were  ready  to  appear  before 
your  Board  and  to  testify  that  they  sent  them  to  me  knowing 
that  I  was  in  Washington.  These  telegrams  were  introduced 
not  for  the  purpose  of  proving  the  statements  contained  in 
them,  but  for  the  purpose  of  showing  my  whereabouts  at  the 
time  such  telegrams  were  sent  and  received  by  me. 

How  did  Attorney  Loesch  characterize  the  introduction  of 
these  telegrams?  He  characterized  it  as  an  attempt  on  my 
part  to  set  up  a  "fake  alibi,"  and  he  was  permitted  thus  to 
insult  me  and  those  who  sent  them  to  me,  unrebuked  by  the 
Chairman  or  any  member  of  your  Board: 

What  was  the  attitude  of  my  judges  when  Funk  presented 
anonymous  telegrams,  later  claimed  to  have  been  sent  by  men 
at  the  request  of  Funk.  Neither  of  these  telegrams  were 

123 


EDWARD   MINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

signed  with  the  name  of  the  sender,  yet  your  Board  un- 
hesitatingly accepted  them  as  valid  evidence,  and  permitted 
Attorney  Loesch  to  insult  Mr.  Eaton  and  myself  because  we 
protested  against  this  outrageous  disregard  of  justice. 

When  the  Board  met  on  Tuesday.  February  20,  1912,  Mr. 
Eaton  thus  addressed  them : 

"The  new  evidence  that  was  presented  in  the  course  of 
Mr.  Loesch's  argument  was  in  the  form  of  a  telegram  signed 
'T.  L.  L.'  which  counsel  introduced  to  serve  the  temporary 
purpose,  and  stated,  I  believe,  that  any  permanent  proof  he 
might  wish  the  Board  to  consider  would  be  presented  at  this 
hearing." 

"I  ask  your  pardon,  sir,"  Attorney  Loesch  replied.  "I 
think  you  are  mistaken.  You  were  the  one  to  produce  the 
proof.  I  was  to  present  no  further  proof.  You  were  to  reply 
to  that."  (901) 

You  will  search  far  to  match  that  for  brazen  insolence !  It 
was  demanded  that  we  bring  in  proof  to  deny  the  false  charges 
of  an  anonymous  telegram.  Mr.  Eaton  kept  his  temper  and 
said :  "It  occurs  to  me  that  if  it  is  a  part  of  the  case  against 
Mr.  Hines  the  sender  of  the  telegram  should  be  identified.  It 
hardly  ought  to  be  possible  to  present  a  witness  in  the  shape 
of  an  anonymous  speaker." 

"Mr.  Chairman,  there  is  no  use  in  discussing  it,"  excitedly  de- 
clared Attorney  Loesch.  "We  can  save  waste  of  time,  and  I 
will  put  Mr.  Funk  on  the  stand  right  away.  It  is  the  same 
sort  of  crawfishing  you  have  seen  here  right  along!"  (902) 

No  comment  should  be  necessary  on  that  remark  from  the 
legal  representative  of  Funk. 

Funk  then  took  the  stand  and  asserted  that  Mr.  Loesch 
had  asked  him,  about  midnight  on  the  preceding  Saturday,  to 
communicate  immediately  with  some  one  in  Washington,  and 
to  ascertain  what  the  books  of  the  New  Willard  Hotel  con- 
tained with  reference  to  my  presence  in  Washington  on  the 
2Oth,  2 ist  and  22nd  of  January.  Funk  had  therefore  com- 
municated by  telephone  with  a  young  man  of  the  name  of 
Lloyd,  whom  Funk  said  was  a  personal  friend  of  his,  and 

124 


EDWARD   HINES   TO  THE   U.    L.    CLUB 

got  him  to  go  to  the  hotel  and  secure  the  information.  He  said 
Lloyd  first  talked  to  him  on  the  telephone  before  sending  the 
telegram,  and  then  after  the  telephone  talk  he  sent  the  telegram 
signed  with  his  initials.  In  the  meantime,  said  Funk,  he 
thought  of  another  young  man  named  Schlobohn,  who  fre- 
quented the  lobby  of  the  New  Willard  Hotel  and  whom  Funk 
had  met  while  in  Washington,  and  he  communicated  with 
Schlobohn  in  regard  to  the  matter,  and  got  a  telegram  from 
him  as  follows  (908)  : 

Washington,  D.  C,  Feb.  18-12. 

C.  S.  Funk,  General  Mgr.  International  Harvester  Co., 
Chicago,  111. 

Hines  and  wife  and  Miss  Moody  reached  here  Jan- 
uary 1 8  of  last  year.  Hotel  books  show  they  were 
charged  with  rooms  till  end  of  that  month.  On  the  i8th, 
iQth  and  2Oth  there  were  charges  for  meals,  telegrams, 
etc.  The  book  shows  no  meals  were  taken  or  charges 
of  any  kind  on  the  2ist  and  22nd  except  two  telegrams 
on  the  first  day,  costing  $15.96  and  $1.66.  These  were  in- 
coming, and  there  is  no  record  as  to  when  he  received 
them.  They  could  have  been  here  a  couple  of  days.  The 
charges  start  again  on  the  23rd,  when  there  are  two  restau- 
rant charges,  one  of  $6  and  one  of  $13.20.  On  the  24th 
he  got  $100  cash.  The  first  railroad  ticket  was  bought  on 
25th.  It  is  thought  it  was  for  Mr.  Hall.  The  books  seem 
to  show  he  was  not  in  the  hotel  on  the  2ist  and  22nd. 
No  baggage  was  moved  till  the  25th.  STONE. 

ii  147  p.  m. 

SOME  CONFIDENTIAL  WORK 

In  his  examination,  in  explaining  who  "Stone"  was,  the 
sender  of  the  above  telegram,  Funk,  said : 

"Stone  is  Schlobohn.  He  has  done  confidential  work 
for  Mr.  Beers  down  there,  and  he  has  used  that  name 
because  of  some  instructions  he  had  received  (sic).  I  sup- 
pose he  thought  this  was  a  confidential  matter  and  he 
would  use  that  with' me"  (916). 

"MR.  EATON  :  And  Mr.  Schlobohn  is  on  the  way  here 
to  testify  to  the  same  effect  as  he  has  indicated  in  this 
wire? 

125 


EDWARD   HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

MR  FUNK  :    ,  Well,  I  don't  understand  that  he  is  on  the 

way — 

Q.     That  he  is  not? 
MR  FUNK:    No. 

Q.    Schlobohn  was  instructed  to  come  on  west  with  the 
books? 

MR.  FUNK:  He  said  that  he  didn't  have  money  enough. 
(917) 

Q.    And  there  are  no  witnesses  on  the  way  then  for  the 
purpose  of  testifying  before  the  Board  ? 
MR  FUNK:    No.    (918) 

Doesn't  this  strike  you  as  being  a  remarkable  proceeding? 
Here  we  have  a  couple  of  anonymous  telegrams,  sent  to 
Funk  by  Funk's  "friends"  at  Funk's  request,  stating  that 
there  were  no  charges  against  me  at  the  New  Willard  Hotel 
upon  the  2ist  and  22nd  of  January  and  conveying  the  imputa- 
tion that  I  was  not  in  Washington  on  either  of  those  dates, 
submitted  to  the  consideration  of  the  Board  by  Mr.  Loesch  at 
the  last  moment  as  evidence  against  me,  without  any  effort 
or  expectation  to  bring  the  signers  of  those*  telegrams  here  as 
witnesses  to  give  their  testimony  before  the  Board,  and  without 
any  desire  or  inclination  shown  on  the  part  of  the  Board  to 
have  them  brought  here. 

The  anonymous  telegram  signed  "T.  L.  L."  was  a  mass  of 
falsehoods  from  beginning  to  end.  The  one  to  the  effect  that 
Mrs.  Hines  signed  a  dinner  check  on  January  21  was  used  by 
Attorney  Loesch  to  convey  the  impression  that  I  was  absent 
from  Washington  on  that  date,  and  that  Mrs.  Hines  therefore 
used  her  credit  with  the  hotel.  It  happened  that  this  par- 
ticular falsehood  was  flatly  contradicted  in  the  "Stone"  tele- 
gram, which  asserted  that  there  were  no  meal  charges  on 
January  2ist  or  22nd.  The  "T.  L.  L."  lie  to  the  effect  that 
the  "Hotel  people  say  H.  (Hines)  surely  was  not  there  on  the 
2ist  and  22nd"  was  contradicted  by  the  responsible  officials  of 

126 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE  U.   L.   CLUB 

the  New  Willard  Hotel,  who  presented  their  books  showing1 
many  charges  on  those  dates,  as  will  be  later  detailed. 

What  was  the  motive  of  this  desperate  expedient?  Why 
were  these  false  and  anonymous  telegrams  introduced  at  what 
was  presumed  to  be  the  close  of  the  hearings?  Here  is  the 
answer  to  those  questions :  It  was  assumed  that  I  could  not,  in 
a  short  space  of  time,  bring  before  the  Board  the  witnesses 
and  the  evidence  to  refute  them.  It  was  proposed  to  use  these 
anonymous  telegrams  as  a  pretext  on  which  to  base  a  verdict 
of  expulsion,  but  I  immediately  introduced  evidence  of  such 
import  that  the  Board  dared  not  let  the  matter  rest  there, 
and  I  was  given  a  limited  amount  of  time  in  which  to  make 
answer  to  the  false  allegations  in  the  anonymous  telegrams. 

RECORDS  OF  THE  NEW  WILLARD  HOTEL 

To  show  how  false  those  telegrams  were  and  how  utterly 
unfounded  was  Loesch's  malicious  attack  on  me  in  that  regard, 
I  procured  in  the  two  days  intervening  between  Sunday  the  i8th 
and  Tuesday  the  2Oth,  by  telegraphing  and  telephoning,  the 
attendance  of  a  number  of  witnesses  from  Washington,  Mary- 
land and  Pennsylvania  to  testify  to  my  whereabouts  on  Jan- 
uary 21  and  22.  And  in  this  connection  I  desire  to  call  your 
attention  to  the  fact  that  these  witnesses  fully  corroborate  my 
detailed  statement  of  my  movements  made  to  the  Board  on 
the  preceding  Sunday  just  before  Loesch  sprung  his  anony- 
mous telegram,  and  at  a  time  when  I  had  no  thought  that  it 
would  be  necessary  to  bring  these  witnesses  to  Chicago. 

For  the  purpose  of  directly  contradicting  these  anonymous 
telegrams  as  to  what  the  records  at  the  New  Willard  Hotel 
showed  in  reference  to  charge  items  against  me  on  January 
21  and  22,  I  secured  the  attendance  before  the  Board  of  Mr. 
Arthur  J.  Wand,  the  manager  and  secretary  of  the  New  Wil- 
lard Hotel  at  Washington,  together  with  his  records,  who  testi- 
fied as  follows  (1172)  : 

MR.  WAND:  I  am  manager  and  secretary  of  the  New 
Willard  Hotel.  I  have  brought  some  hotel  books  and 
records  with  me  and  have  them  here  today.  This  (pro- 

127 


EDWARD   MINES   TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

ducing  a  book)  is  the  transient  ledger  covering  the 
accounts  of  the  letter  "H"  for  January  and  February, 
1911.  I  can  tell  from  that  ledger  when  Mr.  Hines  came 
to  the  hotel  in  the  month  of  January,  1911.  It  was  on 
Jan.  18.  The  account  is  right  here  (indicating).  The 
period  of  time  covered  by  this  entry  on  page  2931  em- 
braces charges  from  Jan.  18  to  25. 

Q.  Will  you  indicate  what,  if  any,  charges  are  shown 
on  the  21  st? 

MR.  WAND:  There  is  a  valet  charge  on  the  2ist,  $i ; 
there  is  a  telephone  charge  of  15  cents  on  the  2ist;  there 
is  a  charge  of  a  telegram  of  $15.19  on  the  2ist;  there  is 
a  charge  of  telegram  $1.66  on  the  2ist;  there  are  three 
telephone  charges  of  10  cents  on  the  21  st;  there  is  one 
telephone  charge  of  90  cents  on  the  2ist;  there  is  one 
charge  of  40  cents  on  the  2ist  (1174)  ;  there  is  a  news- 
stand charge  of  15  cents  on  Jan.  21. 

And  these  false  and  anonymous  telegrams  said  there  were  no 
charges  against  me  on  January  21  and  22 !  Can  you  find  in  any 
case,  formal  or  informal,  a  more  miserable  attempt  to  work 
injustice  ?  And  this  happened  before  the  Board  of  Directors  of 
a  Club  proud  of  its  traditions  and  of  its  honorable  record ! 

Thereupon  these  entries  were  introduced  in  evidence  before 
the  Board.  It  was  also  proved,  by  the  introduction  of  the 
telephone  directory  containing  a  schedule  of  rates  from  Wash- 
ington, that  the  telephone  rate  from  Washington  to  Phila- 
delphia is  90  cents,  and  from  Washington  to  Pikesville  the  rate 
is  40  cents  (1189).  Mr.  Wand  then  testified: 

MR.  WAND:  There  is  no  restaurant  charge  entered 
against  Mr.  Hines  from  the  i8th  to  the  22nd,  and  from 
that  I  would  infer  that  he  customarily  paid  cash  for  his 
meals.  There  is  a  charge  signed  by  Mrs.  Edward  Hines 
which  appears  here  on  the  23rd  as  "Rest.,"  $13.20.  I 
would  say  that  was  served  to  four  people,  judging  from 
the  way  the  portions  are  marked  down  there.  (1187) 

MR.  EATON  :  I  offer  to  show  that  lunch  check  signed 
by  Mrs.  Hines  or  purporting  to  have  been  signed  on  Mon- 
day the  23rd,  was  for  dinner  served  to  Mrs.  Hines,  Mrs. 
Utley  and  Mrs.  Utley's  daughter,  and  the  niece.  Miss 
Moody.  (1188) 

THE  CHAIRMAN  :     How  do  you  propose  to  show  that  ? 

128 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  The  U.  L.  cLUB 

MR.  EATON  :  I  propose  to  show  it,  if  it  becomes  mate- 
rial to  the  Board,  by  calling  those  people. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  :  Is  Mrs.  Hines  prepared  to  testify 
to  that? 

MR.  HINES:     Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  :  We  will  accept  it  then  as  having 
been  stated  by  Mrs.  Hines.  That  will  take  care  of  that. 
(1189) 

This  disposed  of  the  leading  falsehood  in  the  "T.  L.  L." 
telegram. 

A  statement  of  account  of  the  New  Willard  Hotel  against 
me  for  the  dates  January  19,  20,  21  and  22,  1911,  sworn  to 
by  Harry  M.  Howard,  the  cashier  at  the  New  Willard  Hotel, 
was  also  introduced  in  evidence  before  the  Board  (952),  and 
contains  the  same  items  testified  to  by  Mr.  Wand. 

DISPROVING  THE  FINAL  FALSEHOOD 

To  meet  the  new  claim  as  presented  by  these  anonymous 
telegrams,  I  was  recalled  to  the  witness  stand  for  the  purpose 
of  giving  a  detailed  statement  of  my  movements  and  where- 
abouts on  January  21  and  January  22,  1911,  and  testified  as 
follows  (921)  : 

On  the  morning  of  January  21  I  was  in  Washington.  I  also 
was  in  Washington  on  the  evening  of  January  21.  I  took 
dinner  on  January  21  at  the  New  Willard  Hotel  with  Mr. 
Cotter,  of  Texarkana,  Texas,  general  manager  of  the  Colo- 
rado &  Southern  Railroad  and  President  of  the  Texas  Street 
&  Tie  Company,  Miss  Moody,  Mr.  Nelson  and  Mrs.  Hines. 
I  took  my  breakfast  in  my  room  at  the  Willard  Hotel  in  Wash- 
ington on  the  morning  of  the  2ist.  I  listened  to  a  telephone 
conversation  between  Mrs.  Hines  and  Dr.  Riordan,  of  Pikes- 
ville,  Md.,  and  during  the  course  of  that  conversation  I  made 
a  memorandum  in  my  memorandum  book  of  1911,  reading  as 
follows :  "Father  W.  P.  Riordan,  B.  &  O.  R.  R.,  2 :3O— Pikes- 
ville,  Renard,  Camden  station"  (922). 

Father  Riordan  is  a  reverend  gentleman  whom  I  met  in 
Europe  several  times  five  years  ago  this  month,  and  he  is 
stationed  at  Pikesville,  Md.,  a  suburban  town  of  Baltimore.  I 
talked  on  the  telephone  from  Washington  with  Dr.  Green,  of 

129 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

Philadelphia,  on  Saturday  the  2ist.  He  resides,  when  he  is 
home,  in  Chicago,  and  is  in  charge  of  a  college  on  the  south 
side,  a  gentleman  that  I  met  going  on  the  train  on  the  i/th  of 
January,  who  was  on  the  same  train  going  to  New  York,  in 
company  with  Graham  H.  Harris,  former  president  of  the  Chi- 
cago School  Board.  When  I  talked  with  him  on  the  tele- 
phone on  the  2  ist  of  January  I  invited  him,  at  the  request  of 
Dr.  Riordan  through  Mrs.  Hines,  to  meet  us  in  Baltimore  the 
following  Sunday  morning,  the  next  day,  and  go  out  to  Pikes- 
ville,  Md.,  to  take  dinner  at  Dr.  Riordan's  house  (923). 

To  verify  the  telephoning  to  Dr.  Riordan  at  Pikesville  and 
to  Dr.  Green  at  Philadelphia  on  January  21,  I  call  your  atten- 
tion to  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Wand  and  the  entries  in  the  hotel 
record  showing  telephone  charges  against  me  in  the  sum  of  90 
cents  and  40  cents  respectively  on  that  day.  It  was  also  shown 
that  these  were  the  respective  telephone  rates  from  Washington 
to  these  places. 

On  January  22,  I  took  breakfast  in  my  room  in  Washington. 
Then  I  went  to  church,  what  is  called  St.  Patrick's  Cathedral, 
and  left  there  shortly  before  the  service  was  over  to  catch  the 
ten  o'clock  train  for  Baltimore.  This  train  was  late  that  morn- 
ing on  account  of  a  very  severe  storm.  We  waited  some  time 
in  the  depot,  and  when  it  arrived,  we  took  the  train  for  Balti- 
more. In  the  party  were  Mrs.  Hines,  her  niece,  Miss  Moody, 
of  Chicago,  and  myself.  We  were  met  in  Baltimore  on  the 
train  by  Dr.  Green,  who  had  come  down  from  Philadelphia 
that  morning,  and  Mr.  Adam  Dupert,  of  Baltimore,  who  took 
us  in  his  automobile  out  to  Pikesville.  That  is  where  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Riordan  lives.  These  are  the  same  gentlemen  that  I  re- 
ferred to  last  Sunday  evening  when  I  was  giving  my  recollec- 
tion of  my  movements  that  day  (924).  I  got  Mr.  Cotter's 
name  from  Miss  Moody,  who  had  it  in  her  diary,  and  imme- 
diately telegraphed  to  him  asking  him  if  he  remembered  the 
incident  of  being  in  Washington  about  that  time,  and  I  have 
got  his  reply  ready  to  produce  it  here  (927). 

I  sent  for  and  received  a  hotel  bill  from  the  New  Willard 
Hotel,  covering  the  period  from  January  18  to  February  4, 
1911.  (This  bill  with  its  various  items  I  introduced  in  evi- 
dence, and  it  can  be  found  in  the  record  of  these  proceedings 
on  pages  953-955.)  On  January  21  I  attended  a  session  of  the 
Senate  and  listened  to  some  remarks  made  by  Senator  Bev- 
eridge  of  Indiana,  demanding  to  call  up  at  a  very  early  date 
the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  as  to 
Senator  Lorimer  being  seated  or  unseated.  I  also  listened  to 

130 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE  U.   L.   CLUB 

a  debate,  part  of  a  debate  by  Senator  Burton,  just  a  little  of  it. 
That  evening,  as  I  said,  I  took  dinner  at  the  Willard  Hotel 
with  Mr.  Cotter,  Mr.  Nelson,  Mrs.  Hines  and  Miss  Moody. 
I  was  called  away  a  short  time  before  the  dinner  ended,  and 
did  not  return  to  the  hotel  until  some  time  later  (957). 

I  slept  at  the  Willard  Hotel  that  night.  In  the  morning  I 
had  breakfast  in  my  room  and  went  to  9  o'clock  church.  Left 
the  church  shortly  before  the  service  was  over  and  took  the 
train  to  Baltimore;  got  off  at  Camden  Station.  I  was  met 
by  Dr.  Green,  and  Mr.  Adam  Dupert  drove  in  an  automobile 
to  Pikesville.  Had  dinner  that  day.  Returned  along  about 
5 130  or  6  o'clock  to  Baltimore  in  the  automobile,  leaving  Mrs. 
Hines,  Miss  Moody  and  Mrs.  Dupert  all  at  Mr.  Dupert's  resi- 
dence; proceeded  with  Mr.  Dupert  and  Dr.  Green  to  what  is 
known  as  the  Baltimore  Club  in  Baltimore;  was  there  intro- 
duced to  several  gentlemen  by  Mr.  Dupert;  remained  there 
upwards  of  an  hour;  returned  to  Mr.  Dupert's  residence;  had 
dinner;  spent  some  little  time  after  dinner,  and  I  then  took 
the  ten  o'clock  train  that  night  to  Washington  with  Mrs.  Hines, 
Miss  Moody  and  Dr.  Green.  I  remember  of  Mr.  Cotter  coming 
to  see  me  on  Saturday  the  2ist,  with  a  letter  of  introduction 
from  Mr.  Munday,  President  of  the  La  Salle  National  Bank. 
The  letter  of  introduction  I  have  with  me  now.  (The  letter 
was  introduced  in  evidence  and  is  as  follows  (959)  on  the 
letterhead  of  the  La  Salle  National  Bank  of  Chicago:) 

Chicago,  January  18,  1911. 
Mr.  Edward  Hines, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

My  Dear  Mr.  Hines :  This  will  introduce  Mr.  George 
F.  Cotter,  brother  of  Mr.  Cotter,  of  the  Pere  Marquette 
system,  who  will  give  you  every  assistance  in  his  power. 
I  wrote  the  other  Mr.  Cotter  at  Cincinnati  yesterday,  re- 
questing personally  that  he  send  you  a  letter  to  Mr.  Ste- 
vents.  If  you  did  not  get  it,  you  had  better  have  Mr. 
Cotter  call  him  on  the  long  distance  telephone. 
Sincerely  yours, 

C.  B.  MUNDAY. 

This  letter  was  presented  on  Saturday,  the  2ist  of  January 
(959)'  That  is  the  only  day  I  saw  Mr.  Cotter,  and  he  had 
dinner  with  me  in  the  evening  (960).  I  had  Mr.  Nelson,  my 
secretary,  send  a  telegram  to  Mr.  Cotter  asking  him  if  he  could 

131 


EDWARD  HlNfcS  TO   THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

confirm  my  statement  in  regard  to  his  taking  dinner  with  me 
on  the  evening  of  January  21.  We  received  a  telegram  from 
Mr.  Cotter.  (Which  was  introduced  in  evidence  and  is  as 
follows :) 

(On  Western  Union  Telegraph  Co.  day  letter  blank.) 

13    Wu    K    195    Collect    L 

Texarkana,  Ark.,  Feb.  I9th-i2. 
C.  R.  Nelson,  Chicago. 

Have  no  written  memorandum  or  record,  but  have  very 
distinct  recollection  that  you  and  I  had  dinner  Saturday 
evening,  January  2ist,  with  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Hines  and  their 
niece.  It  developed  at  that  time  that  I  was  a  Catholic,  and 
that  Mrs.  Hines  suggested  what  mass  I  shall  attend  the 
next  morning,  and  said  further  that  she  would  see  that  I 
was  called  before  she  left  for  Baltimore  with  Mr.  Hines. 
It  further  developed  in  the  conversation  at  the  table 
that  I  had  not  been  to  Mount  Vernon,  and  I  suggested  to 
you  that  Mr.  Hines  being  away,  you  would  be  at  leisure, 
and  asked  you  to  go  with  me  to  Mount  Vernon  after  I 
returned  from  church.  The  reason  we  did  not  go  after 
my  return  from  church  was  because  it  was  storming  so 
badly  we  did  not  care  to  go  out.  I  left  Washington  on 
that  date  for  Chicago,  and  recollect  that  the  reason  I  had 
not  seen  Mr.  Hines  before  leaving  was  because  he  was  in 
Baltimore  and  had  not  returned  to  Washington.  If  abso- 
lutely necessary  I  can  no  doubt  verify  the  statements  to 
some  extent  by  records  at  the  Willard  Hotel. 

G.  F.  COTTER. 

i  :30  p.  m. 

(In  pencil:  "Prest.  Nat.  Lr.  &  Creosoting  Co.,  Texar- 
kana, Texas.") 

I  also  verified  my  memory  of  dictating  a  large  amount  of 
mail  on  the  2ist,  and  have  verified  it  by  the  shorthand  notes. 
I  dictated  them  to  Mr.  Nelson  and  they  are  in  his  shorthand 
book  (964). 

There  was  also  introduced  in  evidence  the  following  tele- 
gram showing  that  Mr.  Cotter  was  in  Washington  on  January 
21  as  I  had  testified : 


132 


EDWARD   MINES   TO   THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

(Western  Union  Telegraph  Co.  blank.) 
17    Wu    K    19    Paid    5    Ex 

Washington,  D.  C,  Feb.  igth,  1912. 
Geo.  F.  Cotter, 

Care  E.  H.  L.  Co.,  Chicago. 

Records  show  your  arrival  here  January  nineteenth  and 
leaving  January  twenty-second,  nineteen  eleven. 

H.  E.  BATES,  Asst.  Mgr.  the  New  Willard. 
5: 10  p.m.     (966) 

I  was  later  recalled  to  the  stand  and  testified  as  follows  con- 
cerning my  whereabouts  on  January  20: 

MR.  HINES  :  I  was  in  New  York  on  the  2Oth  of  Jan- 
uary. I  left  Washington  for  New  York  on  the  night  of 
the  iQth,  and  returned  by  way  of  Philadelphia  on  Satur- 
day the  2 1  st.  My  examination  of  data  shows  that  I  was 
in  New  York  on  the  2Oth  (996).  I  had  several  matters  to 
attend  to  in  New  York  on  the  2Oth.  I  saw  Mr.  Dudley,  of 
the  Bergen  Company,  exporters  of  lumber,  on  that  day 
(998).  I  saw  Mr.  Shonts,  President  of  the  Interurban 
Railroad,  there  on  that  day.  I  also  saw  Mr.  Brown,  Presi- 
dent of  the  New  York  Central,  that  day.  I  received  a  letter 
on  that  day  from  Mr.  Brown.  I  am  willing  to  show  the 
Chairman  that  letter  (999).  The  letter  is  of  a  confidential 
nature. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  :  I  don't  care  to  read  it.  I  simply  see 
that  the  letter  is  headed  "Grand  Central  Terminal,  New 
York,  Jan.  20,  1911,"  and  is  signed  W.  C.  Brown.  I  don't 
know  what  the  contents  are,  and  I  take  your  statement.  I 
take  your  statement  it  was  handed  you  on  that  day.  That 
is  your  statement  (1000). 

MR.  HINES  :  I  left  there  for  Philadelphia  in  the  after- 
noon and  arrived  at  Philadelphia  late  in  the  afternoon  or 
early  in  the  evening,  and  I  saw  some  gentlemen  in  Phila- 
delphia that  evening  and  returned  to  Washington  on  the 
early  morning  train  (1001).  In  searching  particularly  for 
the  events  of  the  2ist  I  find  notes  that  I  had  dictated  to 
my  stenographer,  Mr.  Nelson,  that  I  had  written  a  letter 
thanking  Mr.  Brown  for  the  courtesies  extended  to  me 
in  New  York  on  the  2Oth.  Then  I  found  a  letter  dictated 
to  another  gentleman  that  will  be  shown,  and  the  notes 
stated  that  I  was  called  hurriedly  to  New  York.  I  left  for 
New  York  the  night  of  the  i9th.  I  passed  part  of  the  2Oth 

133 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE  U.   L.   CLUB 

in  New  York  and  the  evening  of  the  2Oth  in  Philadelphia, 
arriving  in  Washington  the  morning  of  the  2ist  (1009). 

Since  the  matter  first  came  up  I  have  looked  up  data  in 
regard  to  the  circumstance  of  my  return  from  Philadel- 
phia to  Washington,  and  I  remember  now  that  I  returned 
from  Philadelphia  in  the  New  York  sleeper  that  night  and 
arrived  in  Washington  between  three  and  four  o'clock.  I 
slept  in  the  sleeper  until  between  7  and  7 130,  when  I  went 
to  the  New  Willard  (1197). 

12  K.     (1007) 

MISS  MOODY  READS  FROM  HER  DIARY 

I  call  your  special  attention  to  testimony  given  by  Miss 
Helen  Moody.  This  young  woman  is  a  niece  of  Mrs. 
Hines,  and  was  a  guest  of  ours  in  this  her  first  visit  to 
Washington.  Like  many  girls  in  their  teens  Miss  Moody  kept 
a  diary.  I  knew  nothing  of  this,  but  Mrs.  Hines  recalled  that 
her  niece  had  made  certain  notations  in  a  diary  and  Miss 
Moody  volunteered  to  come  before  your  Board  and  read  from 
it  such  data  as  might  help  throw  light  on  the  whereabouts 
of  myself  and  others  at  that  particular  period. 

Read  what  follows  and  decide  for  yourself  if  any  more  con- 
vincing evidence  ever  was  offered  to  prove  matters  in  dispute. 
Decide  for  yourself  whether  to  believe  in  a  baseless  "theory" 
advanced  by  a  biased  prosecution  or  to  believe  in  the  written 
memorandum  perserved  by  this  innocent  young  girl.  That 
diary  conforms  to  the  statements  made  by  reverend  and  dis- 
interested clergymen.  Its  brief  notations  conform  to  every 
statement  made  by  the  various  witnesses  who  came  forward  to 
tell  where  I  was  on  those  days  in  January,  1911.  They  breathe 
the  truth  in  every  line.  Compare  this  testimony  with  the 
maliciously  false  statements  contained  in  the  anonymous  tele- 
grams, and  decide  for  yourself  the  attitude  of  a  tribunal  which 
seemingly  pinned  its  faith  to  the  concoctions  of  "T.  L.  L."  and 
ignored  the  testimony  of  a  score  of  witnesses  of  unimpeach- 
able character.  Miss  Moody  thus  testified: 

I  made  a  visit  to  Washington  early  in  1911,  which  was 
the  first  time  I  had  ever  been  there.  I  went  with  my  uncle 

134 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE  U.   L.   CLUB 

and  aunt,  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Hines.  I  keep  a  short  diary.  I 
have  it  here.  The  entry  for  January  17  is: 

Tuesday.  Up  early.  Got  my  things  ready.  Down  town 
with  mother.  Bought  a  lot  of  pretty  things.  Home. 
Lunch.  Packed  my  trunk.  Dressed.  Auntie  called  for 
me.  Took  the  2:45  train  to  Washington.  Aunt  Loretta 
(Mrs.  Hines),  Uncle  Ed  (Mr.  Hines)  and  Carl  Nelson 
(Mr.  Hines'  Secretary),  Mayor  Busse  on  train. 

For  January  18  the  entries  are: 

Wednesday.  Arrived  in  Washington.  Lunch.  After- 
noon in  the  Senate.  Burrows  spoke;  Borah.  Saw  Lori- 
mer  for  first  time.  Walked  to  hotel.  Dinner  in  our  room. 

The  entry  for  January  19  is : 

Thursday.  Shampoo.  Lunch  in  cafe.  Went  to  Arling- 
ton. Runaway.  Residential.  Burrows'  reception.  Met 
Miss  Nessen,  N.  P.  G.  Beautiful  day.  Dinner  down 
stairs. 

January  20.  Friday.  Auntie,  Carl  and  I  trolley  ride 
through  Alexandria  and  Mount  Vernon.  Delightful. 
Luncheon  at  Mount  Vernon  station.  Washington  Monu- 
ment. Dinner  with  Mr.  Babcock  and  Congressman  Burke. 
Theater. 

The  next,  January  21.  Saturday.  Met  Mary  Scoefield 
and  Trinity  Girls  in  the  Dining  room.  So  good  to  see 
Mary.  Auntie  and  I  matinee.  Saw  "Chocolate  Soldier" ; 
great !  Afternoon  tea.  Dinner  in  evening  dress.  Uncle, 
Auntie,  Carter,  Carl. 

Mr.  Carter  is  a  gentleman  I  met  that  afternoon ;  Carter 
or  something  like  that.  (This  was  Mr.  Cotter,  hereinafter 
referred  to.)  Aunt  Loretta,  Uncle  Ed,  Mr.  Carter  and 
Carl  (Mr.  Nelson)  and  I  had  dinner  together  that  night 

(970. 

The  entry  for  January  22  is: 

Sunday.  Church.  Train  late.  Uncle  Ed  coffee.  Snow- 
ing. Baltimore.  Father  Riordan.  Duperts.  Father 
Green,  of  Chicago.  Back  to  Washington  (972). 

"Uncle  Ed  coffee"  means  that  he  stood  at  the  lunch 
counter  in  the  station  with  a  silk  hat  on,  drinking  coffee 
while  we  were  waiting  for  the  train  to  go  to  Baltimore. 
The  three  of  us  had  been  to  church,  and  went  from  church 
to  the  station  by  carriage,  I  think  it  was.  It  was  storming. 
Mr.  and  Mrs.  Hines  and  myself  were  in  the  carriage.  I 
think  it  was  a  carriage  instead  of  an  automobile  or  taxi. 
We  went  to  church  together.  The  train  was  so  late  and 

135 


EDWARD   HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

it  was  so  cold,  I  suppose  was  why  Mr.  Hines  went  for 
the  coffee. 

One  of  the  members  undertook  to  cross-examine  this  young 
lady  in  a  way  that  I  thought  was  contemptible  and  unneces- 
sary and  indicated  a  strong  desire  to  put  some  discredit  upon 
her  by  petty  matters.  Among  other  questions,  he  asked  as 
follows,  speaking  of  me  at  the  time  I  was  taking  the  coffee : 

Q.     "You  do  not  know  whether  or  not  he  ate  anything, 
too,  do  you  ?" 

What  difference  did  that  make? 

Q.     "Have  you  a  distinct  recollection  of  its  being  a  car- 
riage?" 

What  difference  does  that  make  whether  it  was  a  carriage 
or  some  other  vehicle? 

Q.     "What  kind  of  a  carriage?     Open  or  closed?" 
Was  this  awfully  important? 

Q.     "How  many  waiting  rooms   (in  the  station)   are 
there  there  ?" 

Did  he  suppose  the  young  lady  went  around  and  counted 
them?  She  answered,  she  did  not  know. 

Q.     "Where  was  the  lunch  room  with  reference  to  the 
waiting  room?" 

And 


Q.     "How  far  away  were  you  from  him  when  you  saw 
him?" 

Q.     "You  are  sure  it  was  coffee  ?" 

Q.     "You  knew  he  was  drinking  something?"     *     *     * 

Q.     "You  saw  it  steaming?" 

A.     "Yes,  sir." 

Q.    Was  the  steam  coming  up  ?    A.    Yes,  sir. 

Q.    You  recall  this  distinctly  at  this  time,  do  you  not  ? 

Wasn't  this  a  remarkably  brilliant  line  of  questions  ?  Then 
"A  Member"  gave  Miss  Moody  a  long  cross-examination  about 
Mr.  Cotter:  whether  she  met  him  at  other  times;  where  he 

136 


EDWARD   HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

• 

came  from ;  how  old  he  was ;  and  then  wanted  her  to  describe 
him  more  particularly;  and  when  she  said  he  was  large, 
wanted  her  to  define  what  she  meant  by  "large,"  and  what  his 
complexion  was,  and  what  they  had  for  dinner  (979-981),  and 
what  they  had  to  eat  on  Thursday  evening,  and  what  they  had 
on  Monday  evening. 

If  any  further  proof  were  needed  to  show  that  I  was  then  in 
Washington  and  not  in  Chicago,  the  diary  and  the  testimony  of 
Miss  Moody  evidenced  it. 

Next  Mrs.  Hines  gave  evidence  as  follows  (984)  : 

MRS.  HINES:  I  was  in  Washington  on  Jan.  21,  1911. 
Dined  in  the  evening  at  Willard's  Hotel.  At  that  dinner 
were  Mr.  Hines,  my  niece,  Miss  Moody,  Mr.  Cotter,  and 
Mr.  Hines'  secretary,  Mr.  Nelson.  On  the  morning  of 
the  22nd  (985)  we  left  the  hotel  and  went  to  church,  Mr. 
Hines,  my  niece  and  I,  St.  Patrick's  Cathedral.  We  had 
our  breakfast  in  our  room  at  the  hotel.  We  were  trying 
to  get  to  Baltimore  on  the  early  train  and  to  go  to  church 
early.  We  slept  a  little  later  than  we  should,  and  got  there 
without  any  books.  We  usually  walked  to  church,  but 
because  of  this  we  had  to  drive.  The  train  was  very  late. 
It  was  very  cold.  We  were  walking  about  the  station,  my 
niece  and  I,  and  we  met  Mr.  Hines  at  the  lunch  counter 
having  a  cup  of  coffee,  and  we  joked  him  about  it  and 
asked  him  why  he  did  not  take  us,  too.  I  remember  it 
impressed  my  niece  because  he  was  at  the  lunch  counter 
with  a  silk  hat  on.  From  Baltimore  we  went  to  Pikes- 
ville.  Father  Green  met  us  at  the  station,  and  Mr.  Dupert 
met  us  with  his  car,  and  we  drove  to  Pikesville.  It  was  a 
snowy  day.  We  met  there  Mrs.  Dupert  and  her  niece. 
Had  dinner  there.  We  met  Mr.  Cotter  in  the  evening  of 
Saturday,  the  2ist.  Had  met  him  before.  He  dined  with 
us  that  evening.  (990)  Mr.  Hines  was  not  in  Washington 
the  night  of  the  2Oth ;  he  was  out  of  town. 

Mr.  C.  R.  Nelson,  my  private  secretary,  also  gave  evidence 
(1025)  relating  to  dictations  taken  by  him  in  shorthand  in 
Washington,  D.  C.,  as  follows : 

MR.  NELSON  :  I  have  dictation  here  from  Mr.  Hines,  as 
shown  by  my  shorthand  note  book,  which  I  have  here,  on 
the  21  st  of  January.  I  have  here  dictation  to  L.  H.  McCor- 

137 


EDWARD   HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

mick,  Marinette,  Wis. ;  F.  E.  Waymer,  Treasurer,  Pan- 
way,  Florida 

THE  CHAIRMAN  :  Unless  some  of  the  members  of  the 
Board  call  for  it,  we  will  dispense  with  the  names  and 
dates,  and  say  there  are  twelve  or  fifteen  in  there.  (Indi- 
cating the  note  book.)  (1027) 

MR.  NELSON:     The  evening  of  the  2ist  of  January 

(1028)  I  dined  with  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Hines,  their  niece,  and 
Mr.  Cotter.    Mr.  Cotter  got  to  Washington  on  the  29th. 

(1029)  Mr.  Cotter  is  President  of  the  National  Lumber 
&  Creosoting  Company,  Texarkana,  Ark.    (1023)    I  have 
looked  over  a  lot  of  things  and  find  a  good  many  letters 
dictated  the  2ist  referring  to  Mr.  Hines  being  in  New 
York  the  day  before. 

THE  REVEREND  GREEN  TESTIFIES 

Dr.  James  F.  Green  gave  evidence  (1035)  as  follows: 

DR.  GREEN  :  I  live  at  Sixty-third  and  Oakley  avenue, 
Chicago.  First  met  Mr.  Hines  on  the  i/th  of  January, 
1911,  on  my  way  to  New  York.  Mr.  Hines,  I  think,  went 
to  Washington.  I  stayed  in  New  York,  and  Mr.  Hines 
came  to  New  York  and  I  met  him  then,  and  I  met  him 
again  after  the  igth,  when  I  returned  to  Philadelphia.  My 
recollection  is  that  I  met  him  the  evening  of  the  igth, 
towards  dinner  time.  (1036)  The  next  I  heard  from 
him,  Mr.  Hines  called  me  up  at  my  mother's  home  in 
Philadelphia  on  Jan.  20,  evening.  I  told  him  how  to  get 
to  the  house,  Eighteenth  street  and  Girard  avenue.  He 
came  there,  and  I  arranged  to  meet  Mr.  Ryan,  and  took 
Mr.  Hines  with  me  to  244  North  Lawrence  street,  Phila- 
delphia. Mr.  Hines  said  he  would  go  back  to  Washington. 
I  rode  with  him  to  the  hotel.  He  got  his  valise.  I  rode 
with  him  to  the  Pennsylvania  station,  and  left  him  there 
and  went  home.  (1037)  On  Saturday  I  was  told  to  call 
Mr.  Hines  at  the  Willard  Hotel.  I  did  so,  and  he  asked 
if  I  could  go  on  Sunday  to  have  dinner  with  Father  Rior- 
dan  at  Pikesville,  Maryland.  I  said  I  would,  and  I  took 
the  train,  got  off  at  Camden  station  in  Baltimore,  and 
waited  for  Mr.  Hines'  train,  which  was  awfully  late.  I 
thought  I  had  missed  him.  He  came  afterwards,  and  I 
was  introduced  to  Mr.  Dupert,  who  took  us  in  his  auto- 
mobile to  Father  Riordan's  to  dinner  at  Pikesville.  ( 1044) 
On  the  22nd  of  January  I  first  saw  Mr.  Hines  in  the 

138 


EDWARD   HINES  TO   THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

B.  &  O.  station.  Mrs.  Hines  and  his  niece  came  also.  I 
was  there  when  they  got  there.  It  was  my  sister,  Miss 
Green,  who  told  me  to  call  Mr.  Hines  in  Washington  on 
the  telephone  when  we  made  the  arrangement  to  go  to 
Baltimore  and  to  Father  Riordan's. 


TESTIMONY  OF  A  BALTIMORE  FINANCIER 
Mr.  Adam  Dupert  (1064)  gave  evidence  as  follows: 

MR.  DUPERT  :  I  live  in  Baltimore,  and  was  at  my  home 
on  Jan.  22,  1911.  Father  Riordan  telephoned  me  in  the 
morning  of  Saturday,  the  2ist  of  January.  (1065)  Told 
me  that  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Hines  and  a  young  lady  would  be 
in  Baltimore  Sunday  morning,  and  wouldn't  I  be  kind 
enough  to  meet  them  with  my  auto  at  the  Camden  station  ? 
I  told  them  I  would  be  only  too  happy  to  do  so.  I  did  do 
so.  I  waited  for  them.  I  expected  them  about  10  o'clock, 
and  it  was  after  eleven  when  they  arrived.  It  was  a  very 
disagreeable  day.  They  came  into  the  Camden  station  on 
the  Washington  train,  and  there  I  met  also  Dr.  Green, 
whom  I  had  never  met  before.  Mr.  Hines  introduced  us 
(1066),  and  I  took  them  to  Father  Riordan's  at  Pikes- 
ville,  about  nine  miles.  I  had  met  Mr.  Hines  about  five 
years  ago  on  a  trip  abroad.  I  know  it  was  the  22nd  of 
January,  1911.  I  am  President  of  an  orphan  asylum,  and 
have  been  a  member  of  the  directors  for  twenty  years,  and 
we  meet  the  fourth  Sunday  of  each  month,  and  owing  to 
the  visit  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Hines  I  had  to  forego  attending 
that  meeting.  I  took  Mr.  Hines  to  the  club  of  which  I 
was  a  member ;  I  wanted  him  to  meet  some  of  my  friends. 
I  took  Mr.  Hines'  party  (1068)  back  to  the  depot  for 
Washington,  Camden  station,  at  night. 

I  submit  in  all  fairness  that  testimony  more  complete  and 
convincing  never  was  offered  in  any  court  to  prove  a  con- 
tested fact.  Many  of  the  witnesses  who  appeared  before  your 
Board  to  testify  that  I  was  not  in  Chicago  on  or  near  January 
21,  1911,  were  strangers  or  comparative  strangers  to  me.  They 
are  persons  of  high  character.  They  have  not  the  slightest 
interest  in  withholding  or  in  coloring  the  truth. 


EDWARD   HINES   TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

ANSWERING  FACTS  WITH  SLURS 

Funk's  attorneys  and  certain  bitterly  partisan  members  of 
the  Board  indulged  repeatedly  in  slurs  and  broad  insinuations 
when  I  presented  witnesses  who  flatly  disproved  the  dates  on 
which  it  was  alleged  that  I  might  have  been  in  Chicago.  These 
malicious  partisans  pretended  to  believe  that  it  would  be 
remarkable  if  I  could  prove  my  exact  whereabouts  on  any  date 
which  might  be  selected. 

There  was  nothing  remarkable  about  it.  I  can  do  the  same 
thing  relative  practically  to  every  date  since  I  became  active 
in  business.  Any  man  in  business,  who  preserves  his  office 
records  and  who  insists  that  modern  methods  of  transacting 
business  be  followed,  can  make  an  examination  of  correspond- 
ence files,  copies  of  telegrams,  telephone  records,  checks  and 
other  memoranda,  and  establish  his  whereabouts  on  any  date 
which  may  be  in  question.  Mr.  Cyrus  McCormick  did  it  before 
your  Board.  Edgar  A.  Bancroft  had  no  difficulty  in  telling 
where  he  was  on  various  dates,  and  Clarence  S.  Funk  doubt- 
less could  have  shown  exactly  where  he  was  on  any  given  date, 
had  he  desired  to  be  fair  and  honest  in  assisting  your  Board 
in  arriving  at  the  truth.  What  did  Funk  do  ? 

When  it  best  suited  Funk's  purpose  he  pretended  blank 
ignorance  of  all  dates,  and  insulted  me  before  your  Board 
because  I  was  able  to  prove  my  whereabouts  by  introducing 
ordinary  business  correspondence  and  office  memorandum. 
Funk  was  later  driven  to  fix  a  definite  date  for  an  alleged 
event.  What  did  he  then  do?  He  established  his  whereabouts 
on,  that  date  by  his  diary,  and  informed  your  Board  that  his 
office  records  would  corroborate  his  movements  as  set  forth 
in  that  diary!  We  did  not  question  the  authenticity  of  that 
data.  We  did  not  insinuate  that  Mr.  McCormick  and  Mr. 
Bancroft  had  manufactured  data  to  prove  where  they  were  on 
certain  dates.  It  would  be  an  astounding  thing  if  the  active 
head  of  a  great  business  enterprise  could  not  make  such  an 
examination  of  its  corespondence  files  as  would  determine 
whether  he  was  in  the  city  of  his  activities  on  a  certain  date. 

140 


EDWARD   MINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

A  member  of  your  Board  gave  frank  expression  to  his 
surprise  that  it  should  be  deemed  wonderful  that  I  was  able 
to  tell  where  I  was  located  on  certain  dates.  The  plain  truth 
of  the  matter  is  this :  There  is  not  a  judge  in  the  country  who 
would  not  unhesitatingly  accept  the  validity  of  the  data  I 
presented  to  prove  my  whereabouts  on  the  various  dates  called 
in  question  before  your  Board.  I  will  go  further  than  that. 
It  is  my  deliberate  opinion  that  not  a  member  of  your  Board 
doubted  the  absolute  authenticity  of  the  evidence  which  /' 
submitted  to  prove  my  whereabouts  on  these  dates. 

INTERESTING  TESTIMONY  OF  FATHER  RIORDAN 

I  desire  now  to  offer  a  portion  of  the  evidence  of  one  of  the 
gentlemen  who  contributed  to  what  Loesch  called  "a  fake 
alibi."  I  refer  to  the  testimony  offered  by  the  Reverend 
Michael  J.  Riordan.  This  honored  clergyman  has  a  parish 
in  Pikesville,  Maryland.  I  had  become  acquainted  with  him 
while  on  a  trip  abroad,  five  years  before.  I  secured  his  pres- 
ence before  your  Board  by  telephoning  to  him  from  Chicago. 
Bear  in  mind  that  it  was  the  pretended  theory  of  the  prosecu- 
tion that  I  was  in  Chicago,  and  that  I  held  the  second  interview 
with  Funk  on  January  21,  1911.  This  was  their  last  stand. 
This  was  the  last  date  they  dared  set  up  in  support  of  Funk's 
latest  "theory."  Father  Riordan  thus  testified : 

Q.  Do  you  remember  your  whereabouts  on  the  22nd 
of  January  of  last  year  ? 

FATHER  RIORDAN  :     Yes,  sir ;  I  do.    I  was  in  Pikesville. 

Q.     Did  you  see  Edward  Hines  that  day? 

FATHER  RIORDAN  :     Sure ;  sure. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  communication  with  Mr.  or  Mrs. 
Hines  on  the  preceding  day,  the  2ist? 

FATHER  RIORDAN:     Certainly. 

Q.  State  the  circumstances  in  regard  to  that  com- 
munication. 

FATHER  RIORDAN  :  I  received  a  telephone  message 
from  Mrs.  Hines  Saturday  morning,  I  don't  know  the 
exact  hour ;  say,  possibly,  about  9  o'clock ;  telling  me  that 
they  would  be  over  Sunday  if  agreeable  or  convenient  to 

141 


EDWARD   HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

me.  I  had  frequently  asked  them  to  come.  I  had  been 
their  guest  here  a  couple  of  times.  So  I  made  the  arrange- 
ments and  told  them  the  train  to  take.  I  know  they  were 
late  for  dinner. 

Q.  When  were  you  asked  to  refresh  your  memory 
regarding  these  facts  ? 

FATHER  RIORDAN:  On  last  Sunday  night.  I  had  no 
particular  reason  to  remember  the  date.  It  had  gone  out 
of  my  mind.  I  don't  keep  diaries;  I  don't  burden  my 
mind  with  things  of  that  kind,  and  I  rarely  preserve  letters 
or  documents  unless  I  think  they  are  very  important.  So 
Sunday  night  I  really  could  tell  only  that  Mr.  Hines  was 
at  my  house  about  a  year  ago. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  about  refreshing  your  recollec- 
tion? 

FATHER  RIORDAN  :  Well,  that  night  I  turned  to  my 
household — my  household  consists  of  a  housekeeper  and 
her  daughter,  a  grown  girl  twenty-seven  years  old — a 
telephone  operator — and  they  are  both  of  good,  acute 
minds ;  and  they  could  not  remember.  Finally  the  house- 
keeper says:  "If  you  get  the  day  I  bought  those  olive 
dishes,"  she  says,  "I  could  swear  that  is  the  date  Mr. 
Hines  was  here."  I  said:  "Where  did  you  buy  them?" 
She  says :  "Hochschild,  Kohn  &  Co."  I  said :  "Did  you 
pay  cash  ?"  She  said :  "No.  I  have  had  an  account  there 
for  ten  years."  I  said :  "That's  easy.  We  will  find  that 
out  tomorrow."  That  was  Sunday. 

Then  the  colored  girl  said  that  she  went  that  night  and 
got  a  bottle  of  Duffy's  apple  juice — if  you  remember  that 
(addressing  Mr.  Hines)  ;  it  was  something  you  had  never 
seen  before.  And  then  we  had  a  Smithfield  ham,  and  I 
think  it  was  the  first  time  Father  Green  had.  I  said: 
"Was  that  a  cash  transaction?"  She  said:  "No." 

My  housekeeper  remembers  distinctly  the  trouble  she 
had  getting  it  out  that  day.  I  called  up  Jordan  Stabler  & 
Co.,  grocer,  and  asked  him  about  the  Smithfield  ham.  It 
was  bought  on  January  21.  I  called  up  Hochschild,  Kohn 
&  Co.  and  asked  him.  "Yes,"  he  said,  "bought  on  the 

2ISt." 

I  remember  distinctly  the  snowy  weather,  the  snowy 
day.  I  can  see  Mr.  Hines  now  in  the  afternoon  going 
directly  across  my  lawn.  My  lawn  runs  in  a  circle,  and 
around  my  lawn  is  the  approach  to  my  house.  I  told 
those  people :  "Don't  bother  to  go  around,  take  a  straight 


EDWARD  MINES  TO  THE  U.   L.   CLUB 

line,"  and  I  can  remember  Mr.  Hines  with  his  silk  hat 
and  the  white  covered  ground,  and  I  can  see  him  now, 
going  over  from  his  automobile. 

Q.     What  is  the  significance  of  "olive  dishes"? 

FATHER  RIORDAN  :  Those  olive  dishes,  oh,  I  got  them 
from  my  merchant.  You  remember  (addressing  Mr. 
Hines)  Mrs.  Hines  commenting  on  the  olive  set,  and 
somebody  had  never  seen — somebody  at  the  table  did  not 
know  what  they  were.  I  confess  that  I  would  not  know 
myself  if  my  housekeeper  had  not  told  me.  They  are 
certainly  very  unique.  I  told  that  to  my  housekeeper 
afterwards,  and  she  was  delighted  to  have  some  of  my 
guests  who  were  world-wide  travelers  who  had  never 
seen  these  things.  Here  is  the  memorandum.  They  were 
got  on  the  2ist. 

And  there  were  the  oyster  forks.  I  remember  espe- 
cially getting  the  oyster  forks.  I  usually  use  the  plain 
fork,  until  we  had  these  people  for  company  that  day, 
people  who  had  traveled,  and  were  accustomed  to  having 
things  O.  K.  So  my  housekeeper  insisted  on  having 
oyster  forks.  I  said  to  her:  "We  want  to  do  things 
right." 

LOESCH  CONVINCED— SIDLEY  WILL  ADMIT  NOTHING 

Father  Riordan  submitted  the  itemized  bills  of  Hochschild, 
Kohn  &  Company,  showing  that  all  of  these  purchases  were 
made  on  January  21,  1911,  also  the  bill  of  Jordan  Stabler  & 
Company,  showing  that  the  Smithfield  ham  and  other  articles 
mentioned  were  purchased  on  the  same  date. 

All  of  the  witnesses  had  testified  that  this  Sunday  of  Jan- 
uary 22,  1911,  was  a  cold,  snowy  day.  A  tame  attempt  was 
made  to  insinuate  that  the  Pikesville  dinner  might  have 
occurred  on  some  other  Sunday.  Father  Riordan  submitted  a 
statement  from  William  H.  Alexander,  Section  Director  of 
the  United  States  Weather  Bureau,  proving  that  this  was  the 
only  cold  Sunday  in  that  period  with  a  heavy  fall  of  snow. 

What  do  you  think  of  the  testimony  of  Father  Riordan? 
Does  it  not  ring  with  honesty?  Is  it  not  instinct  with  truth? 
Can  there  be  any  doubt  that  I  was  his  guest  on  that  stormy 
Sunday,  the  22nd  day  of  January,  1911? 

143 


EDWARD   HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

This  testimony  so  impressed  Attorney  Loesch  that  he  rea- 
lized the  folly  of  attempting  to  impeach  it.  He  made  (1085) 
the  reluctant  admission:  "I  will  allow  the  dinner  at  Balti- 
more is  satisfactorily  proven!" 

Chairman  Sidley  later  took  pains  to  inform  me  that  the 
Board  would  not  be  bound  by  any  admissions  made  by  its  at- 
torney, and  gave  the  plain  intimation  that  no  proof  I  could  sub- 
mit would  necessarily  have  weight  with  him  or  the  Board.  Let 
me  now  call  your  attention  to  the  situation  confronting  those 
who  were  vainly  searching  for  some  pretext  to  believe  Funk. 

READ  THIS  CAREFULLY 

The  editorial  of  January  21  was  their  last  resort.  Funk 
had  repudiated  his  sworn  testimony  in  Washington.  He  had 
repudiated  all  of  the  original  and  conflicting  statements  con- 
cerning the  date  of  the  alleged  second  interview  as  made  in 
his  early  testimony  before  your  Board.  He  had  repudiated 
the  arguments  made  in  his  favor  by  Attorney  Scott.  He  had 
specifically  fixed  on  the  editorial  of  January  21  as  the  impelling 
cause  of  my  agitated  call  at  his  office  and  of  my  alleged  attempt 
to  "refresh  his  memory."  Funk  cannot  escape  his  words 
preserved  in  the  official  record  as  compiled  by  your  Board  and 
surrendered  to  me  only  when  your  officials  dared  no  longer 
to  refuse  me  this  legal  right.  Here  is  what  Funk  said  before 
your  Board.  (Pages  628  and  629  U.  L.  Record)  : 

Q.  In  the  testimony  you  have  given  referring  to  an 
editorial,  from  which  editorial  you  fix  your  best  recol- 
lection of  the  interview  with  Mr.  Hines,  what  is  now  your 
impression  as  to  which  editorial  you  referred  to? 

MR.  FUNK:  IT  IS  MY  DISTINCT  RECOLLEC- 
TION IT  WAS  THE  EDITORIAL  OF  JANUARY 
2oTH,  1911. 

Can  language  be  plainer?  Out  of  the  mass  of  Funk's  shift- 
ing recollections,  evasions,  conjectures  and  tricky  responses 
to  plain  questions,  this  reply  stands  practically  alone  as  a 
direct  answer  to  a  direct  question.  He  was  no  longer  in 

144 


EDWARD   MINES   TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

doubt  about  it.  It  was  his  DISTINCT  RECOLLECTION 
that  it  was  the  EDITORIAL  OF  JANUARY  20,  1911 ! 

The  final  theory  set  up  by  Attorney  Loesch  and  to  which 
my  prosecutors  clung  as  long  as  possible,  was  absurd  to  the 
point  of  silliness.  Look  at  it  for  a  moment : 

It  was  finally  admitted  that  I  was  in  New  York  City  on  the 
day  that  the  editorial  of  January  20,  1911,  was  published.  It 
was  admitted  that  on  that  day  I  talked  with  President  W.  C. 
Brown,  of  the  New  York  Central  Railroad,  and  with  Mr. 
Theodore  Shonts,  President  of  the  Interboro  System  of  the 
metropolis.  Loesch,  Sidley  and  others  arrayed  against  me 
halted  at  alleging  that  Mr.  Brown  and  Mr.  Shonts  were  parties 
to  my  "fake  alibi."  They  accordingly  were  spared.  I  was 
presumed  to  have  received  news  of  the  Record-Herald  editorial 
while  in  New  York  City,  and  it  is  the  assumption  of  the  prose- 
cution that  I  rushed  from  the  office  of  Mr.  Brown  or  Mr. 
Shonts,  and  took  the  Twentieth  Century  Limited  for  Chicago, 
arriving  there  at  8:55  on  the  Saturday  morning  of  January 

2 1  St. 

WHAT  I  DID  NOT  DO 

Now  follow  me,  as  I  am  pictured  in  the  minds  of  those  who 
grasp  at  a  straw  on  which  to  float  Funk's  veracity.  On  arriv- 
ing in  Chicago  I  rushed  at  once  to  Funk's  office,  reaching  there 
shortly  after  nine  o'clock.  I  tell  the  puzzled  Funk  that  he 
must  have  been  mistaken  about  what  I  said  to  him  two  years 
before.  I  say  nothing  about  any  editorial.  I  am  agitated. 
Funk  listens  and  says  that  he  thinks  he  does  remember  what 
I  said.  He  then  excuses  himself  and  goes  into  a  conference. 
( The  records  of  Mr.  McCormick  and  Mr.  Bancroft  show  that 
Funk  held  no  conference  with  them  on  that  date.) 

What  do  I  then  do  ?  Do  I  consult  a  lawyer  about  this  awful 
crisis  which  has  thus  been  precipitated  by  this  Record-Herald 
editorial?  No.  Do  I  go  to  my  office  and  confer  with  Mr. 
Wiehe,  who  is  presumed  to  have  telegraphed  or  telephoned 
the  gist  of  the  editorial  to  me?  No.  Do  I  see  anybody  in 
Chicago,  save  Funk  ?  No.  What  do  I  then  do  ?  Listen ! 

145 


EDWARD  HIKES  TO  THE  U.   L.   CLUB 

I  take  the  10:30  train  back  to  Washington.  I  arrive  in 
Washington  at  8:30  on  this  snowy,  stormy  Sunday,  and  it  is 
proved  that  I  attended  9  o'clock  services  that  morning.  I  am 
presumably  in  a  business  suit.  Fresh  from  my  criminal  con- 
ference with  Funk  I  am  presumed  to  rush  to  the  hotel,  change 
my  clothes,  go  to  church  with  my  wife  and  her  niece,  and  later 
put  in  a  happy  day  in  social  intercourse  with  devout  clergy- 
men! 

Yet  this  absolutely  idiotic  "theory"  was  soberly  argued, 
solemnly  considered  and  apparently  affirmed  by  your  Board. 
It  had  not  one  verified  fact  to  fortify  it,  and  disproves  itself. 
It  necessarily  was  predicated  on  the  insulting  assumption  that 
witnesses  who  testified  that  I  was  in  the  East  at  that  time 
told  deliberate  falsehoods.  This  theory  was  a  declaration  that 
at  least  one  of  the  clergymen  was  a  falsifier.  It  was  a  declara- 
tion that  several  reputable  business  men  had  deliberately  told 
untruths  in  my  behalf.  It  was  a  declaration  that  the  heads  of 
the  New  Willard  Hotel,  of  Washington,  had  falsified  its  records. 
It  was  a  declaration  that  Miss  Helen  Moody  had  manufactured 
a  diary  for  my  special  benefit.  All  of  which  is  so  palpably 
absurd  that  I  shall  not  further  discuss  it. 

A  MASS  OF  UNDISPUTED  EVIDENCE 

With  this  digression,  I  now  submit  a  digest  of  the  testimony 
of  other  witnesses  whose  testimony  removed  the  last  possible 
doubt  concerning  my  whereabouts  on  the  dates  in  question. 

Miss  Anna  T.  Green,  of  Philadelphia,  testified  as  follows : 

Miss  GREEN  :  I  recall  the  evening  of  Jan.  20,  1911.  I 
was  at  home  at  1206  North  Eighteenth  Street,  Philadel- 
phia. I  did  not  know  Mr.  Hines  at  all  until  that  night. 
I  met  him  that  night  at  our  home — I  and  my  brother.  My 
brother  is  Father  Green,  a  priest.  I  got  home  at  about  half 
past  eight  or  nine  in  the  evening,  and  it  was  about  twenty 
minutes  before  he  (Hines)  got  there.  The  next  day  Mr. 
Hines  called  up  the  house  on  the  telephone  and  asked  for 
my  brother.  He  was  not  there.  He  was  at  Chestnut  Hill ; 
430  was  the  number  of  the  'phone ;  I  gave  it  to  him  and  he 
could  not  get  him.  Mr.  Hines  asked  me  to  have  him 
call  him  at  the  Hotel  Willard  at  Washington.  That  was 

146 


EDWARD   MINES  TO  THE  U.   L.   CLUB 

on  Saturday,  the  day  following  Jan.  20.  I  know  that 
because  on  the  22nd  my  brother  went  to  Baltimore. 
(1167.)  I  know  Mr.  Ryan  of  Philadelphia  very  well 
indeed.  Mr.  Ryan  had  a  fall  in  the  second  week  in  Jan- 
uary and  he  was  very  miserable.  Both  himself  and  his 
wife  are  very  miserable  just  now. 

MR.  EATON:  The  offer  was  made  to  have  Mr.  Ryan 
here,  and  if  he  had  been  physically  able  he  would  have 
been  here  to  testify  as  to  seeing  Father  Green  and  Mr. 
Hines  on  the  evening  of  the  2Oth.  (1168) 

Oliver  J.  Labeau  was  then  called  as  a  witness.    He  testified 
(1169): 

MR.  LABEAU  :  That  he  was  assistant  chief  usher  in  St. 
Patrick's  Cathedral  at  Washington,  D.  C,  and  held  that 
position  on  the  22nd  day  of  January,  1911.  Mr.  and  Mrs. 
Hines  and  their  niece  were  in  church  on  that  day.  He 
knew  it  was  on  the  22nd  day  of  January  because  on  the 
Sunday  following,  which  was  the  29th,  he  had  friends 
from  Chicago  who  visited  him.  These  friends  were  Mr. 
and  Mrs.  St.  Auburn  and  Mrs.  Mangan,  and  he  told  them 
about  having  quite  a  lot  of  visitors  from  Chicago  lately, 
and  told  them  that  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Hines  and  Miss  Moody 
were  at  church  the  Sunday  previous.  In  order  to  verify 
his  dates  he  went  over  to  the  Driscoll  Hotel  (where  his 
friends  were  stopping)  and  got  the  dates  that  they  were 
there.  He  found  that  his  friends  were  at  the  Driscoll 
Hotel  from  Jan.  28  to  Feb.  2.  In  stating  his  memory  of 
seeing  us  at  church  on  that  particular  morning  the  witness 
said: 

"I  know  when  Mr.  Hines  comes  to  St.  Patrick,  as  a 
rule  he  always  comes  into  n  o'clock  mass,  which  is  high 
mass,  and  this  Sunday  he — or  rather,  I  was  in  the  habit  of 
taking  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Hines  to  the  Austro-Hungarian  Am- 
bassador's pew.  For  that  reason — I  may  say  seats  are  very 
much  in  demand  at  St.  Patrick's,  and  at  that  time — I  know 
the  Ambassador  was  away,  I  knew  that  I  could  put  the 
party  in  there,  and  I  knew  that  they  would  not  be  disturbed, 
he  being  away.  And  any  time  he  was  away  and  Mr.  and 
Mrs.  Hines  came  I  knew  that  I  could  put  them  there. 
This  Sunday  I  remember  that  Mr.  Hines  tapped  me  on 
the  shoulder  and  he  said,  'I  don't  want  to  be  put  up  in 
the  front.'  He  said,  'I  am  going  to  catch  a  train  and  I 
am  liable  to  leave  before  the  services  are  finished.'  I  said, 

147 


EDWARD   H1NES   TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

'Very  well,'  and  I  put  him  in  the  rear  left  about  the  third 
pew,  and  he  got  up  before  the  services  were  finished, 
and  I  followed  him  into  the  vestibule,  and  I  shook  hands 
with  Mrs.  Hines,  and  Mrs.  Hines  said,  'Mr.  Labeau,  this 
is  Miss  Moody.'  And  it  was  cold  weather  and  a  bluster- 
ing day.  I  said,  'I  know  Mr.  Frank  Moody.'  She  said, 
'Yes,  that  is  my  uncle.'  And  with  that  they  jumped  into  a 
carriage."  (1170-1171) 

My  counsel  offered  to  produce  Mr.  G.  F.  Cotter  to  prove 
that  he  was  in  Washington  on  Jan.  21  and  that  he  met  me  that 
day  and  took  dinner  with  us  at  the  New  Willard  Hotel  on 
that  day,  as  previously  testified  to  by  myself,  Mrs.  Hines,  Miss 
Moody  and  Mr.  Nelson.  Whereupon  the  Chairman  said  that 
he  had  a  telegram  from  Mr.  Cotter  and  that  the  telegram  was 
entirely  satisfactory  to  the  Board  and  that  the  Board  was 
entirely  prepared  to  admit  that  if  Mr.  Cotter  were  present  he 
would  testify  exactly  in  accordance  with  that  telegram.  The 
telegram  so  received  by  the  Chairman  of  the  Board  is  as 
follows : 

B  336  D.  L.  D.    78  Blue. 

Denver,  Colo.,  22nd  Feb. 
Wm.  Sidley,  Union  League  Club, 

Chicago,  111. 

This  is  to  certify  that  I  know  that  Edward  Hines  of 
Chicago  was  in  Washington,  D.  C.,  on  Jan.  21,  1911.  I 
saw  him  there  during  the  day,  and  dined  with  him  and 
Mrs.  Hines  and  other  friends  that  evening  at  the  New 
Willard  Hotel.  The  Denver  Athletic  Club  will  identify 
my  presence  here  today,  and  you  can  satisfy  yourself  as  to 
my  reputation  by  referring  to  almost  any  prominent  man 
in  Texas,  especially  the  Governor.  G.  F.  Cotter.  (1191) 

This  telegram  was  supplemented  by  another  from  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  Denver  Athletic  Club,  as  follows : 

B  534  A.  G.  P.  and  24-5  Ex.  Sig. 

Denver,  Colo.,  22. 
William  Sidley,  Pt.  Union  League  Club, 

Chicago,  111. 

Mr.  George  F.  Cotter  of  Texarkana,  Texas,  is  now  a 
guest  of  the  Denver  Athletic  Club,  dining  here  today. 
(1191)      R.  F.  Parvin,  President,  Denver  Athletic  Club. 

148 


EDWARD  MINES  TO  THE  u.  L.  CLUB 

My  counsel  then  stated  to  the  Board  that  he  had  a  witness 
who  would  testify  to  the  personal  illness  of  Mr.  Ryan  of  Phila- 
delphia and  his  inability  to  be  present.  (Mr.  Ryan  was  the 
gentleman  who  saw  me  and  in  whose  company  I  was  in  con- 
junction with  Father  Green  in  Philadelphia  on  the  evening  of 
Jan.  20.)  The  Chairman  thereupon  stated,  "We  accept  that 
as  a  fact  of  record."  (1191) 

GENTLEMEN  WHOM  I  MET  ON  JAN.  21 

My  counsel  then  stated  that  Mr.  W.  C.  Brown,  President  of 
the  New  York  Central  Railroad,  had  wired  authority  to  pre- 
sent the  letter  that  was  given  to  me  on  Jan.  20  in  New  York, 
and  asked  that  the  Board  consider  that  letter  in  connection 
with  my  letter  of  the  2ist  to  Mr.  Brown,  thanking  him  for  the 
courtesy  shown  the  day  before  in  New  York.  (1192)  My 
counsel  then  introduced  in  evidence  this  telegram  addressed 
to  me  (1193)  : 

6  Wu.  K.  42.  Collect  23.  Columbia,  S.  C.,  Feb.  22-12. 
E.  H.  (E.  H.  L.  Co.),  Chicago. 

I  was  guest  of  New  Willard  Hotel,  Washington,  D.  C., 
Jan.  21,  1911.  Stopped  there  on  my  way  to  Palm  Beach, 
Florida.  Saw  you  at  said  place  on  said  date  concerning 
certain  litigation  I  had  for  your  wife. 

Allen  Gilbert.    8:30  a.  m. 

This  gentleman  is  a  member  of  the  firm  of  Gilbert  &  Gilbert, 
of  the  Chicago  bar.  My  counsel  also  introduced  in  evidence 
the  following  telegrams  ( 1 194)  : 

Paid.  Chicago,  Feb.  21,  1912.  Z.  W.  Whitehead,  care 
Southern  Lumber  Journal,  Wilmington,  N.  C. 

Do  your  records  show  you  were  in  Washington  from 
Jan.  19  to  23rd,  1911?  Have  you  recollection  or  memo- 
randa of  seeing  Mr.  Hines  Saturday,  Jan.  21,  1911?  Very 
important.  Wire  answer  our  expense  quick. 

Edward  Hines  Lumber  Co. 

And  the  following  replies: 

3  Po.  K.  48  Coll.  L.  23.  Wilmington,  N.  C.,  Feb. 
22-12.  E.  H.  L.  Co.,  Chicago. 

My  recollection  is  lumber  people  had  first  meeting  on 

149 


EDWARD  HIKES  TO  THE  U.  L.  CLUB 

lumber  tariff  matters  Washington  City  about  Jan.  19, 
1909,  with  Mr.  Mines,  Fosburgh,  Skinner,  myself  and 
others  present,  continuing  in  session  three  or  four  days, 
devising  ways  and  means  for  heading  off  free  lumber 
legislation  by  Congress.  Z.  W.  Whitehead.  8:i6a.  m. 

4  Po.  K.  36.  Coll.  Wilmington,  N.  C.,  Feb.  23-12. 
E.  H.  (E.  H.  L.  Co.),  Chicago. 

Remember  distinctly  being  in  Washington  Saturday, 
Jan.  21  last  year,  and  conferring  with  you  about  Canadian 
reciprocity  and  hearing  you  speak  of  Stillwell  leaving  for 
New  York  night  before.  Had  my  wife  up  there  week 
before.  Z.  W.  Whitehead.  11:253.  m.  (1195) 

I  was  asked  by  a  member  of  the  Board  about  Mr.  Adam 
Dupert,  and  I  stated:  "He  is  a  gentleman  of  standing  in 
Baltimore.  He  is  a  director  of  the  National  Bank  of  Balti- 
more, a  director  of  the  Farmers'  &  Merchants'  Bank  of  Balti- 
more, a  director  in  the  Consolidated  Electric  Light  &  Power 
Company,  one  of  the  largest  stockholders,  and  a  director  in 
the  Creamery  Company  of  Baltimore.  He  is  a  director  and 
officer  of  the  Tide  Water  Cement  Company  of  Baltimore." 

("99) 

At  the  conclusion  of  the  evidence  and  before  the  arguments 
of  counsel  were  begun  I  was  asked  by  a  member  of  the  Board, 
"When  did  you  first  know  of  the  publication  of  the  editorial 
of  Jan.  20,  1911?"  And  I  replied: 

Let  me  say  I  never  knew  of  the  editorial  being  pub- 
lished till  Mr.  Scott  produced  it  here  several  days  ago. 
I  never  read  it.  No  attention  was  ever  called  to  me  about 
it,  and  in  addition  I  never  saw  the  Record-Herald  article 
of  Feb.  15  until  after  the  Helm  Committee  investigation. 
And  no  one,  to  my  knowledge,  ever  referred  to  that 
article  of  Jan.  20 — either  by  newspaper  articles,  records 
or  anything — until  Mr.  Scott  referred  to  it  here.  It  was 
a  complete  surprise  to  me,  and  at  Washington  my  whole 
attention  was  called  to  the  date  of  Feb.  15.  I  made  a  very 
careful  search  to  satisfy  the  Committee  where  I  was  all 
that  time.  When  this  was  sprung  on  me  the  other  night 
I  relied  on  documentary  evidence  I  had,  but  since  that 
time  I  have  gone  completely  into  a  personal  search  to 
verify  every  statement  I  made  here  to  you,  and  can  sub- 

150 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE  U.  L.  CLUB 

stantiatc  it  in  every  detail.  If  there  is  anything  you  wish 
verified  I  can  satisfy  every  member  on  that  point,  no 
matter  how  particular  they  want  to  be,  to  show  that  I  was 
not  in  Chicago  on  those  dates.  (1139) 

FUNK   IMPEACHED   BY   HIMSELF,    M'CORMICK  AND   BANCROFT 

Attorney  Loesch  told  the  exact  truth  in  his  argument  for 
the  prosecution  when  he  asserted  that  the  Board  must  render 
a  decision  based  on  the  veracity  of  Clarence  S.  Funk  relative  to 
his  testimony  concerning  the  alleged  "second  conversation" 
between  himself  and  me.  Mr.  Loesch  assured  your  Board  that 
the  date  of  January  20,  1911 — the  date  of  the  newly  discovered 
Record-Herald  editorial — was  vital.  Mr.  Loesch  declared: 

"IT  IS  A  MOUNTAIN  PEAK,  BECAUSE  AROUND 
THAT  CENTERS  THE  TRUTH  OR  FALSITY  OF  MR. 
FUNK'S  STATEMENTS  APPLICABLE  TO  THE  CON- 
TROVERSY." 

This  was  tantamount  to  a  declaration  that  the  Board  must 
ignore  and  forget  all  of  Funk's  testimony  fixing  other  dates. 
It  was  a  declaration  that  Funk  had  testified  falsely  in  naming 
February  15,  1911,  as  the  approximate  date.  It  was  a  declara- 
tion that  Funk  had  not  testified  correctly  when  he  answered 
that  September  or  October,  1909,  was  the  period  in  which  I 
paid  that  second  alleged  visit  to  Funk. 

Attorney  Loesch  knew,  and  every  member  of  your  Board 
knew  that  January  20  was  the  date  of  last  resort.  Listen  again 
to  Mr.  Loesch:  (Page  843,  U.  L.  Record.) 

"We  have  fixed  the  editorial  of  January  2Oth  because  we 
have  produced  it,  and  the  date  of  its  publication  is  established, 
and  it  answers  all  the  conditions  which  MR.  FUNK  HAD  IN 
MIND  AS  HE  TESTIFIED  HERE  BEFORE  YOU.  Now, 
that  is  the  crucial  point.  It  was  before,  or  it  was  after.  IT 
WAS  IMMEDIATELY  AFTER.  Or,  it  was  a  day  or  two 
after,  or  it  was  around  that.  You  can  read  and  reread  the 
testimony  and  you  will  always  come  back  to  that  point.  Now, 
THAT  IS  OUR  FIXED  POINT." 

Is  not  that  plain  language?  Why  did  Mr.  Loesch  make 

iSl 


EDWARD  MINES  TO  THE  u.  L.  CLUB 

that  positive  declaration?  Because  there  was  no  other  escape 
from  the  conclusion  that  Funk  had  invented  the  story  of  the 
second  conversation. 

Please  fix  in  your  mind  the  fact  that  there  was  one  impera- 
tive condition  which  had  to  be  established  before  it  could  be 
assumed  that  there  was  even  a  possibility  that  the  alleged 
second  interview  between  Funk  and  myself  occurred.  That 
condition  was  this :  A  DATE  HAD  TO  BE  DISCOVERED 
ON  WHICH  FUNK,  McCORMICK,  BANCROFT  AND 
MYSELF  ALL  WERE  IN  CHICAGO. 

Fortunately  for  the  cause  of  truth,  this  condition  was  one 
fixed  by  testimony  other  than  that  given  by  Funk.  He  would 
not  have  hesitated  to  repudiate  any  former  testimony  on  that 
point.  He  would  have  squirmed  and  twisted  and  evaded  the 
plain  purport  of  any  statement  which  had  been  nullified  by 
evidence  introduced  against  him,  but  the  diaries  of  Mr.  Cyrus 
H.  McCormick  and  Mr.  Edgar  A.  Bancroft,  which  were  intro- 
duced by  Mr.  Loesch  for  another  purpose,  upon  examination 
by  my  counsel,  revealed  the  whereabouts  of  Mr.  McCormick 
and  Mr.  Bancroft  on  every  day  in  the  crucial  period,  and  flatly 
impeach  the  veracity  of  Clarence  S.  Funk,  and  prove  that  the 
second  alleged  interview  never  occurred! 

Under  the  grossly  unfair  method  of  procedure  adopted  and 
insisted  on  by  your  Board,  I  was  compelled  to  make  a  defense 
against  allegations  or  insinuations  not  then  fortified  by  any  evi- 
dence whatever.  The  prosecution  was  permitted  to  set  up  any 
conceivable  theory  or  suggestion,  and  I  was  forced  to  combat 
that  fancy  or  figment  with  documentary  evidence.  With  this  in 
their  possession  the  prosecution  would  later  introduce  what 
evidence  they  had,  or  would  decline  to  answer  it  if  it  was 
deemed  unanswerable.  This  seems  incredible,  but  the  record 
proves  that  this  was  the  procedure  adopted  and  followed. 

I  am  glad  that  I  first  established  my  whereabouts  on  the 
various  dates  called  in  question.  I  did  this  at  a  time  when  I 
had  not  the  slightest  idea  that  Funk,  McCormick  and  Bancroft 
had  diaries  showing  a  record  of  their  movements,  and  when  I 
did  not  know  that  these  diaries  would  be  submitted  in  evidence. 

152 


EDWARD   MINES  TO   THE   U.    L.    CLUB 

THESE  DIARIES  OF  THE  PROSECUTION  ITSELF 
CONTAIN  THE  UNASSAILABLE  PROOF  OF  THE 
TRUTH  OF  MY  TESTIMONY  THAT  I  WAS  NOT  IN 
CHICAGO  ON  ANY  DATE  MADE  POSSIBLE  BY 
EITHER  OF  THE  EDITORIALS  IN  QUESTION. 

A  PROPHECY  FULFILLED 

At  the  time  Attorney  Loesch  made  the  unhesitating  declara- 
tion that  the  second  alleged  interview  was  caused  by  the 
editorial  of  January  2Oth,  and  that  it  occurred  shortly  after- 
wards, I  at  once  made  a  statement  showing  in  a  general  way 
my  whereabouts,  but  I  had  not  then  had  the  time  to  mass  the 
proof  later  disclosed  by  an  examination  of  telegrams,  corres- 
pondence files,  hotel  records,  etc.  Mr.  Loesch  pretended  that 
he  saw  a  way  in  which  I  might  have  made  a  trip  from 
Washington  to  Chicago  and  return,  and  he  brazenly  assumed 
that  I  did  make  that  trip  and  that  I  did  hold  the  interview  with 
Funk.  In  ignorance  of  the  fact  that  I  would  later  put  in 
documentary  and  oral  evidence  which  even  he  could  not  ignore, 
Loesch  made  (page  864)  this  additional  declaration,  pinning 
himself  squarely  down  to  a  specific  date : 

"Now,  this  confirms  like  a  stroke  from  the  above  the  theory 
I  was  working  out  last  night,  that  there  can  be — that  was  the 
day  and  there  was  no  other  day.  (January  21,  1911,  as  the  date 
of  the  alleged  interview.)  And  that  conversation  took  place  as 
certain  as  the  sun  is  shining  upon  us  today.  Now,  the  facts 
fit  into  that,  and  do  not  fit  anywhere  else,  and  it  is  just  as 
Daniel  Webster  says  in  the  great  Webster  trial :  'There  is  no 
place  in  the  universe  for  a  lie/  and  some  way,  somewhere, 
somehow,  that  fact  will  be  proven  here,  and  it  can  be  proven." 

THAT  PROPHECY  WAS  FULFILLED!  The  lie  was 
exposed  in  the  Union  League  Club,  and  it  was  exposed  even  by 
Attorney  Loesch's  witnesses.  The  diaries  kept  for  Cyrus  H. 
McCormick  and  Edgar  A.  Bancroft  proved  that  they  were  not 
in  Chicago  on  any  date  within  the  period  imperatively  fixed 
by  the  facts  and  by  the  testimony — the  condition  imposed  being 

153 


EDWARD   H1NES   TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

that  Funk,  McCormick,  Bancroft  and  myself  all  must  be  in 
Chicago  on  the  same  date. 

I  did  not  establish  that  condition.  Funk  gave  the  original 
testimony  affirming  it.  He  swore  in  Springfield  and  in  Wash- 
ington that  he  immediately  related  to  McCormick  and  to  Ban- 
croft some  version  of  what  was  alleged  to  have  happened.  Both 
McCormick  and  Bancroft  testify  that  Funk  came  at  once  to 
them  with  a  tale  of  my  alleged  visit,  and  of  my  attempt  "to 
refresh  his  memory."  They  therefore  became  witnesses  be- 
cause of  something  said  by  Funk. 

Funk  labored  under  no  such  handicap  in  the  matter  of  the 
original  Union  League  Club  conversation  of  May  27,  1909. 
He  named  no  witnesses.  He  presumed  that  it  would  be  solely 
his  word  against  mine,  and  he  depended  on- a  partisan  press  to 
blacken  my  character.  But  as  to  the  second  alleged  conversa- 
tion he  named  witnesses,  and  these  witnesses  of  his  owni 
creation  came  before  the  Union  League  Club  and  impeached 
what  remained  of  his  veracity. 

AN  ELOQUENT  CHART 

I  now  submit  a  chart  compiled  from  the  diaries  submitted  to 
your  Board  by  Clarence  S.  Funk,  Cyrus  H.  McCormick  and 
Edgar  A.  Bancroft,  and  from  the  verified  proof  of  my  where- 
abouts as  given  by  witnesses  of  the  highest  standing  and  repu- 
tation, whose  testimony  is  fortified  by  documentary  evidence 
the  validity  of  which  cannot  be  called  into  question.  Here 
is  the  concrete  proof  that  I  told  the  truth.  Here  is  the  over- 
whelming evidence  that  I  was  falsely  accused,  unfairly  tried 
and  unjustly  condemned  by  your  Board : 


154 


EDWARD   HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

CHART  SHOWING  MOVEMENTS  OF  HINES,  FUNK,  M'COBMICK 
AND  BANCROFT  FROM  JANUARY  11,  1911,  TO  MARCH  12, 
1911,  THIS  BEING  THE  ONLY  PERIOD  WITHIN  WHICH  THE 
ALLEGED  SECOND  INTERVIEW  BETWEEN  FUNK  AND 
HINES  COULD  HAVE  OCCURRED. 


Date. 

Funk. 

Hines. 

McCormick. 

Bancroft. 

Jan. 

11 

Chicago 

Washington 

Chicago 

Left  for  N.  Y. 

" 

12 

Chicago 

Washington 

Left  for  N.  Y. 

New  York 

11 

13 

Chicago 

Washington 

New  York 

New  York 

" 

14 

Chicago 

Left   for  Chicago 

New  York 

New  York 

" 

15 

Chicago 

Chicago 

New  York 

Washington 

" 

16 

Chicago 

Chicago 

Chicago 

Washington 

" 

17 

Chicago 

Left  for  Wash. 

Chicago 

Washington 

11 

18 

Chicago 

Washington 

Chicago 

.  Washington 

" 

19 

Chicago 

Left  for  N.  Y. 

Chicago 

Chicago 

" 

20 

Chicago 

N.  Y.  &  Phlla. 

Chicago 

Chicago 

" 

21 

Chicago 

Washington 

Chicago 

Chicago 

14 

22 

Chicago 

Wash.    &    Bait. 

Chicago 

Chicago 

" 

23 

Chicago 

Washington 

Chicago 

Chicago 

" 

24 

Chicago 

Left  for  N.  Y. 

Chicago 

Chicago 

" 

25 

Chicago 

New  York 

Chicago 

Chicago 

11 

26 

Chicago 

New  York 

Chicago 

Chicago 

" 

27 

Chicago 

Washington 

Chicago 

Chicago 

" 

28 

Chicago 

Washington 

Chicago 

Chicago 

" 

29 

Chicago 

Washington 

Chicago 

Chicago 

" 

30 

Chicago 

Washington 

Chicago 

Chicago 

" 

31 

Chicago 

Washington 

Chicago 

Chicago 

Feb. 

1 

Chicago 

Washington 

Chicago 

Chicago 

" 

2 

Chicago 

Washington 

Chicago 

Chicago 

" 

3 

Chicago 

Washington 

Chicago 

Chicago 

" 

4 

Chicago 

Washington 

Chicago 

Chicago 

" 

5 

Chicago 

Chicago 

Left  for  N.  Y. 

Chicago 

" 

6 

Chicago 

Chicago 

New  York 

Chicago 

' 

7 

Left  for  N.  Y. 

Left   for  Wash. 

New  York 

Chicago 

1 

8 

New  York 

Washington 

East 

Chicago 

• 

9 

New  York 

Washington 

East 

Chicago 

1 

10 

New  York 

Left  for  N.  Y. 

East 

Chicago 

1 

11 

New  York 

Washington 

East 

Chicago 

' 

12 

Chicago 

Washington 

East 

Chicago 

" 

13 

Chicago 

Washington 

East 

Left  for  Boston 

" 

14 

Chicago 

Washington 

East 

Boston 

" 

15 

Chicago 

Washington 

East 

Boston 

" 

16 

Chicago 

Left    for   N.   Y. 

East 

Boston 

" 

17 

Chicago 

Washington 

East 

Worcester 

1 

18 

Chicago 

Washington 

East 

Worcester 

1 

19 

Left  for  N.  Y. 

Washington 

East 

Waterbury 

' 

20 

New  York 

Washington 

East 

Waterbury 

1 

21 

New  York 

Washington 

East 

New  York 

• 

22 

New  York 

Washington 

East 

Chicago 

' 

23 

Chicago 

Washington 

East 

Chicago 

' 

24 

Chicago 

Washington 

East 

Chicago 

' 

25 

Chicago 

Washington 

East 

Chicago 

" 

26 

Chicago 

Washington 

East 

Chicago 

" 

27 

Chicago 

Washington 

East 

Chicago 

" 

28 

L'ft  for  Wash 

Washington 

East 

Chicago 

Mar. 

1 

"Washington 

Washington 

East 

Chicago 

•• 

2 

Washington 

Washington 

East 

Chicago 

* 

3 

Washington 

Washington 

East 

Chicago 

1 

4 

Left   for  Chi. 

Left   for   Chicago 

East 

Chicago 

1 

5 

Chicago 

Chicago 

Florida 

Chicago 

• 

6 

Chicago 

Left    for    Duluth 

Florida 

Chicago 

• 

7 

Chicago 

Duluth 

Florida 

Chicago 

" 

8 

Chicago 

North 

Florida 

Chicago 

" 

9 

Chicago 

North 

Florida 

Chicago 

" 

10 

Chicago 

North 

Chicago 

Chicago 

" 

11 

Chicago 

North 

Chicago 

Chicago 

" 

12 

Chicago 

Chicago 

Chicago 

Chicago 

Consider,  please,  that  that  portion  of  the  public  which  still 
doubts  my  complete  innocence  is  as  yet  in  total  ignorance  of 

155 


EDWARD   HINES  TO  THE  U.   L.   CLUB 

the  fact  that  Clarence  S.  Funk  was  compelled  to  repudiate  be- 
fore your  Board  his  sworn  testimony  given  in  Springfield  and 
Washington. 

Consider,  please,  that  this  is  the  first  announcement  of  the 
fact  that  Cyrus  H.  McCormick  and  Edgar  A.  Bancroft  sur- 
rendered to  your  Board  the  absolute  documentary  proof  that  I 
told  the  truth  in  Springfield  and  in  Washington  when  I  de- 
clared that  I  did  not  call  on  Clarence  S.  Funk  on  or  near  Feb- 
ruary 15,  1911.  For  giving  such  truthful  testimony  I  was 
branded  a  criminal  on  the  floor  of  the  United  States  Senate  by 
Senator  La  Follette,  who  unhesitatingly  accepted  the  word  of 
Funk  that  I  did  come  to  him  on  or  about  that  date,  and  that  I 
made  a  proposition  to  him  which  Senator  La  Follette  charac- 
terized as  typical  of  the  criminal  detected  and  anxious  to  cover 
up  his  tracks. 

Consider,  please,  that  Senator  La  Follette  and  all  of  the 
members  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  have  as  yet  no 
official  knowledge  of  the  facts  herewith  presented  to  you. 

Consider,  please,  that  Clarence  S.  Funk  •rave  this  repudiation 
of  his  sworn  testimony  to  your  Board  at  a  time  when  the 
Dillingham  Committee  was  still  in  session;  when  it  was  still 
making  an  honest  effort  to  throw  all  possible  light  on  the 
methods  used  to  elect  Senator  Lorimer;  when  Clarence  S. 
Funk  knew  that  he  was  the  witness  whose  testimony  was 
responsible  for  the  present  investigation  of  that  election — con- 
sider, please,  that  Clarence  S.  Funk  gave  that  entirely  new 
testimony  before  your  Board  and  that  he  has  declined  to  c<v 
form  to  my  request  that  he  go  before  the  Dillingham  Com- 
mittee and  tell  under  oath  the  story  which  he  employed  to  have 
me  expelled  from  the  Union  League  Club! 

Consider,  please,  that  the  press  of  the  nation  which  was 
induced  to  class  my  truthful  testimony  of  my  presence  in 
Washington  on  or  near  February  15,  1911,  as  "a  fake  alibi," 
still  has  no  inkling  that  Cyrus  H.  McCormick  and  Edgar  A. 
Bancroft,  by  their  diaries — produced  for  the  first  time— gave 
before  your  Board  the  concrete  evidence  which  affirms  that 

156 


EDWARD   MINES   TO  THE   U.    L.   CLUB 

I  spoke  the  truth  and  that  the  allegations  against  me  were 
mistakes  or  open  perjury. 

Neither  McCormick  nor  Bancroft  were  in  Chicago  on  or 
near  the  date  fixed  by  Funk  in  his  sworn  testimony  before  the 
Dillingham  Committee. 

WHAT  THE  CHART  PROVED 

Never  in  any  investigation,  legal  or  informal,  public  or 
private,  was  more  overwhelming  proof  presented  than  that 
which  I  offered  to  refute  Funk's  claim  of  said  alleged  second 
interview,  and  that  I  came  to  his  office  on  or  near  January  20, 
1911,  because  of  an  editorial  discovered  to  have  been  printed  on 
that  date.  Not  an  atom  of  proof  was  presented  by  the  prosecu- 
tion to  that  effect.  All  of  their  former  "theories"  had  been 
absolutely  obliterated.  Their  founder  stood  impeached  and 
discredited.  I  was  vindicated  by  the  evidence,  yet  Funk  was 
permitted  to  climb  out  of  the  ruins  of  his  shattered  fictions 
and  his  new  "theory"  was  seemingly  accepted  as  gospel  truth 
by  a  Board  which  had  witnessed  absolute  and  repeated  im- 
peachments of  his  veracity. 

No  court  of  law  would  have  asked  me  to  disprove  a  "theory," 
unsupported  by  evidence,  much  less  a  "theory"  enunciated  by 
the  impeached  author  of  discarded  and  exploded  "theories." 
But  I  had  no  desire  to  stand  on  legal  technicalities.  I  realized 
that  the  method  of  procedure  was  unfair,  but  notwithstanding 
I  was  able  to  prove  to  your  Board  and  now  to  you  my  innocence 
against  any  contention  set  up  by  Funk  or  his  representatives 
on  or  off  the  Board. 

The  new  "theory"  was  that  it  was  possible  that  I  was  in 
Chicago  on  or  about  January  20,  1911.  It  was  not  contended 
that  it  could  be  proved  that  I  was  then  in  Chicago.  Not  at  all. 
I  was  compelled  to  prove  that  I  was  not  in  Chicago  on  that 
date,  and  it  was  a  foregone  conclusion  that  my  failure  to  pre- 
sent absolute  proof  would  decree  my  guilt!  In  other  words, 
the  mere  fact  that  I  had  returned  to  Chicago — my  place  of 
business,  the  center  of  my  activities,  my  home — on  that  par- 

157 


EDWARD   H1NES   TO  THE   U.    L.   CLUB 

ticular  date,  would  be  presumed  to  adjudge  me  guilty  of  having 
held  an  interview  with  a  man  whose  entire  testimony  is  a  mass 
of  involved  contradictions.  A  number  of  things  could  have 
called  me  to  Chicago  on  that  date.  It  is  not  a  crime  to  return 
from  Washington  or  New  York  to  Chicago.  Yet,  before  your 
Board,  it  would  have  been  deemed  evidence  of  a  crime  in 
my  case,  and  it  was  demanded  that  I  defend  myself  against 
the  possibility  that  I  had  committed  it. 

It  happened,  as  the  evidence  shows,  that  I  was  not  in  Chicago 
on  or  near  the  date  of  January  20,  1911,  and  I  proved  this  by 
offering  the  witnesses,  evidence,  data  and  documentary  proof 
condensed  and  partially  enumerated  as  follows : 

WHAT  I  PROVED 

That  I  left  Washington  for  New  York  on  the  evening  of 
January  ip,  and  was  in  New  York  on  January  20th.  This  is 
thus  proved: 

Testimony  of  Mr.  C.  R.  Nelson,  Mrs.  Hines,  Miss  Moody, 
myself;  a  letter  from  W.  C.  Brown  dated  January  20,  1911, 
and  handed  to  me  by  him  on  that  day  in  New  York;  a  letter 
of  my  own  dated  the  next  day  at  Washington  to  Mr.  W.  C. 
Brown  thanking  him  for  the  courtesies  shown  me  the  day  be- 
fore; also  Mr.  Moffitt,  Mr.  Dudley  and  Mr.  Shonts  whom  I 
met  that  day  in  New  York  and  whom  I  named  in  my  testimony 
as  persons  who  would  corroborate  my  statement  that  I  met 
them  on  that  day  in  New  York.  If  my  statement  in  this  regard 
was  not  true  it  would  have  been  very  quickly  disproved  by  the 
prosecution  by  securing  communications  from  these  gentlemen 
showing  that  fact. 

That  I  was  in  Philadelphia  on  the  evening  of  January  20th 
was  thus  proved: 

The  testimony  of  Dr.  Green,  Miss  Green  and  myself;  proof 
that  Mr.  Ryan,  who  also  saw  me  in  Philadelphia  was  ill  and 
unable  to  be  present. 

That  I  was  in  Washington  on  January  21  was  conclusively 
proved  as  follows: 

158 


EDWARD   H1NES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

Testimony  of  Mr.  Nelson,  Mrs.  Hines,  Miss  Moody,  Mr. 
Wand  with  hotel  records,  myself,  shorthand  book  of  my  private 
secretary  showing  numerous  dictations  of  letters,  etc.,  made  by 
me  to  him  in  the  course  of  business  on  that  date ;  two  telegrams 
from  Mr.  Cotter  stating  that  he  was  in  Washington  on  that 
date  and  met  me  and  took  dinner  with  me  at  my  hotel ;  a  tele- 
gram from  Allan  Gilbert  stating  that  he  was  in  Washington 
and  met  and  talked  with  me  on  that  date ;  also  a  telegram  from 
Z.  W.  Whitehead  stating  that  he  was  in  Washington  on  that 
date  and  conferred  with  me  about  a  business  matter;  also  a 
telegram  sent  by  me  from  Washington  to  Chicago  on  that 
date  and  a  number  of  telegrams  received  by  me  at  Washington 
on  that  date;  telephone  charges  confirming  telephone  talks  on 
that  day  with  Dr.  Riordon  of  Pikesville,  and  Dr.  Green  of 
Philadelphia;  diaries  containing  entries  confirming  my  pres- 
ence in  Washington  on  that  day. 

That  I  was  in  Washington  and  Pikesville,  Md.,  on  January 
22nd  was  proved  by  these  witnesses: 

Testimony  of  Miss  Moody,  Mrs.  Hines,  Mr.  Nelson,  Mr. 
Lebeau,  Adam  Dupert,  Dr.  Green,  Dr.  Riordan,  Mr.  Wand, 
with  hotel  records,  and  by  memorandum  dictated  by  me  to  Mr. 
Law. 

In  the  course  of  fixing  my  whereabouts  during  all  of  the 
time  I  was  absent  from  Chicago  it  also  conclusively  appeared 
from  the  foregoing  witnesses  in  Washington,  and  by  telegrams 
sent  and  received  by  me  at  Washington,  shorthand  notes  show- 
ing dictation,  hotel  records  and  charges,  etc.,  that  I  was  in 
Washington  on  January  23rd  and  24th  and  that  I  left  Wash- 
ington on  the  evening  of  the  24th  for  New  York. 

It  also  appeared  by  the  testimony  of  witnesses  and  by  tele- 
grams and  so.  forth,  sent  and  received  by  me  at  New  York, 
and  by  the  hotel  register  and  charges  entered  on  the  books  of 
the  Waldorf-Astoria  Hotel  Company,  that  I  was  in  New  York 
on  January  25,  26  and  27,  and  that  I  returned  to  Washington 
on  the  evening  of  the  27th. 

It  also  appears  from  the  testimony  of  witnesses,  telegrams 
sent  and  received  by  me,  shorthand  notes  showing  letters  dic- 

159 


EDWARD   HINES  TO   THE   U.    L.   CLUB 

tated  by  me,  telephone  charges,  hotel  records  and  charges  on 
the  books  of  the  hotel  against  me,  diaries  and  so  forth,  that  I 
was  in  Washington  continuously  from  the  time  of  my  return 
from  New  York  on  the  evening  of  January  22nd  to  the  evening 
of  February  5th,  1911,  when  I  returned  to  Chicago. 

It  also  appears  by  a  mass  of  like  evidence  that  I  was  in  Wash- 
ington and  the  East  continuously  from  February  8  (when  I 
returned  to  Washington  from  Chicago)  up  to  the  evening  of 
March  4,  1911,  when  I  left  Washington  for  Chicago  on  a  train 
with  Clarence  S.  Funk  on  board,  both  of  us  arriving  in  Chicago 
on  March  5. 

THE  LUCK  OF  A  SUNDAY 

Study  that  chart.  When  I  gave  my  testimony  I  had  not  the 
slightest  knowledge  of  the  movements  of  Mr.  McCormick  and 
of  Mr.  Bancroft.  I  had  no  idea  that  I  would  later  be  called  on 
to  account  for  every  day  and  hour,  neither  did  I  suspect  that 
it  would  have  been  fatal  for  me  to  have  been  in  Chicago  on  a 
day  when  Mr.  McCormick,  Mr.  Bancroft  and  Funk  were  in 
their  home  offices.  Observe  the  movements  of  Mr.  McCormick 
and  Mr.  Bancroft.  Seemingly  a  kindly  fate  inspired  one  or 
the  other  of  these  gentlemen  to  leave  Chicago  on  all  occasions 
when  there  was  a  possibility  of  a  conjunction  of  the  four  of  us. 

Note  how  our  orbits  approached  and  finally  joined  on 
February  5.  Of  course,  this  was  ten  days  before  the  pub- 
lication of  the  editorial  of  February  15,  and  sixteen  days 
after  the  editorial  of  January  20,  and  did  not  fit  in  any  way 
the  various  kinds  of  testimony  Funk  has  thus  far  given,  but 
there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  the  prosecution  would 
have  clutched  at  that  date  despite  all  that,  were  it  not  for  one 
Providential  circumstance,  viz:  February  5,  1911,  fell  on  a 
Sunday. 

Mr.  McCormick  left  for  New  York  or  the  East  on  that 
Sabbath  day — as  his  diary  shows — but  suppose  he  had  post- 
poned his  trip  another  day?  It  then  would  have  been  alleged 
that  the  interview  occurred  on  that  day,  Monday,  the  sixth 
of  February,  and  I  would  have  been  held  guilty  because  of 
the  fact  that  I  happened  to  be  in  Chicago  at  a  time  when 

160 


EDWARD   HIKES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

Funk,  McCormick  and  Bancroft  were  at  their  headquarters. 
Of  course,  an  editorial  would  not  have  served  as  the  alleged 
cause  of  my  alleged  frightened  call  on  Funk,  but  some  other 
"assumption"  would  have  been  invented  and  advanced,  and  no 
denial  of  mine  or  any  proof  offered  would  have  outweighed 
with  my  prosecutors  the  fact  that  it  was  possible  such  an  inter- 
view could  have  been  held. 

All  they  wanted  was  a  possibility  that  I  could  have  called 
on  Funk  within  the  period  prescribed  by  the  two  editorials. 
They  knew  that  proof  could  not  be  produced.  The  mere 
possibility  that  the  falsehood  told  by  Funk  could  be  enter- 
tained was  all  that  the  prosecution  tried  to  establish,  but  they 
dared  not  advance  the  claim  that  Funk,  McCormick  and 
Bancroft  were  in  their  offices  on  a  Sunday.  The  calendar  stood 
in  their  way.  Of  course,  Funk  might  have  introduced  evidence 
to  prove  that  February  5,  1911,  did  not  fall  on  a  Sunday,  and 
certain  members  of  the  Board  might  have  declined  to  be 
guided  by  any  astronomical  proof  I  might  have  presented  in 
defense  of  the  calendar,  but  this  point  was  not  raised. 

The  frantic  search  for  a  straw  on  which  to  float  Funk's 
veracity  had  failed.  The  mute  testimony  of  the  diaries  which 
recorded  the  movements  of  Mr.  McCormick  and  Mr.  Bancroft 
destroyed  the  last  fragment  of  the  flimsy  fiction  behind  which 
Funk  had  taken  shelter.  Two  skilled  attorneys  had  failed  in 
their  efforts  to  construct  and  sustain  any  sort  of  a  pretext  on 
which  to  decree  my  expulsion,  but  this  made  no  difference  so 
far  as  that  finding  was  concerned.  It  must  now  be  apparent 
to  you  that  no  proof  in  my  behalf,  no  impeachment  of  Funk, 
would  have  prevailed  to  prevent  the  decree  winch  apparently 
had  been  determined  in  advance. 

The  basis  of  that  inference  against  your  Board  is  affirmed 
by  every  page  of  the  record  in  which  is  preserved  the  history 
of  this  disgraceful  procedure. 

FUNK  VERSUS  FUNK 

Space  does  not  permit  more  than  a  glance  at  Funk's  flat  con- 
tradictions, pitiful  evasions  and  clumsy  flounderings  as  ex- 

161 


EDWARD  HIKES  TO  THE  U.  L  CLUB 

hibitcd  on  the  record  of  my  trial  before  your  Board  in  com- 
parison with  his  sworn  testimony  given  in  Washington  and 
Springfield.  If  ever  a  witness  impeached  himself,  Funk  is  that 
witness. 

Consider  first  the  various  dates,  or  approximate  dates,  that 
Funk  fixed  in  the  various  hearings  when  he  was  asked  to  fix 
the  date  for  the  alleged  "second  conversation." 

1 i )  Before  the  Dillingham  Committee  Funk  thus  explained 
what  I  said:  (Dill.  557)  "The  substance  of  it  was  that  he  did 
not  want  me  to  misunderstand  our  talk  the  other  day."    This 
infers  that  the  alleged  second  talk  occurred  a  few  days  after 
the  one  of  May  27,  1909.    For  aught  that  appears,  according 
to  this  evidence,  Funk  places  the  second  talk  nearly  two  years 
prior  to  the  appearance  of  any  editorial. 

(2)  The  date  next  in  order  as  set  by  Funk  was  "a  few 
months  after"  the  original  conversation  in  the  Union  League 
Club.    This  indefinite  date  appears  on  Page  20  of  the  record 
of  my  trial  before  your  Board. 

(3)  When  asked  by  some  member  of  your  Board  to  be 
more  definite,  Funk  replied  (Page  21)  :    "I  think  it  was  four 
or  five  months  after  the  meeting  in  the  Union  League  Club." 
This  flat  repudiation  of  his  sworn  testimony  given  before  the 
Dillingham  Committee  established  a  new  date  of  September  or 
October,  1910. 

(4)  The  manner  in  which  Funk  fixes  the  fourth  date  for 
this  one  particular  alleged  interview  is  revealed  in  his  testimony 
before  the  Union  League  Club,  as  follows :  (Page  21,  U.  L.) 

QUESTION  :  Had  the  matter  become  public  before  this 
second  conversation? 

MR.  FUNK:    No. 

QUESTION  :  Did  you  later  mention  that  conversation  to 
anybody  which  gave  it  more  publicity  ? 

MR.  FUNK:  Yes,  sir;  I  mentioned  it  to  Mr.  Kohlsaat, 
a  personal  friend  of  mine. 

QUESTION  :    How  long  was  that  ago  ? 

MR.  FUNK:  That  was  several  months  afterwards,  as 
I  recall  it.  It  was  about  the  time  Mr.  Hines  came  to  see 

162 


EDWARD  H1NES  TO  THE   U.   L.  CLUB 

me  the  second  time,  and  /  connected  these  two  things  in 

my  mind. 

Observe  that  Funk  carefully  refrained  from  mentioning  any 
editorial  to  your  Board.  Before  the  Helm  and  Dillingham 
Committees  he  repeatedly  and  unhesitatingly  connected  my 
second  visit  with  him  to  the  appearance  of  the  editorial  of  Feb- 
ruary 15,  1911,  but,  having  been  impeached  on  that,  Funk  now 
told  your  Board  that  he  identified  my  second  talk  with  the  fact 
that  he  had  revealed  it  to  Mr.  Kohlsaat.  Funk  stated  to  your 
Board  that  the  conversation  with  Mr.  Kohlsaat  took  place 
before  the  first  senatorial  investigation  of  the  election  of  Sen- 
ator Lorimer.  (U.  L.  Page  22.)  This  placed  it  at  least  prior 
to  September,  1910,  when  the  Burrows  Committee  began  its 
investigations. 

(5)  The  date  fixed  by  Funk  before  the  Helm  and  Dilling- 
ham Committees  was  a  day,  a  day  or  two,  or  a  very  short  time 
after  February  15,  1911.    Everybody  understood  from  Funk's 
testimony  that  this  was  the  date. 

(6)  The  new  editorial  of  January  20,  1911,  was  the  sixth 
attempt  of  Funk  to  fix  a  date. 

(7)  On  ascertaining  positively  that  I  was  in  New  York  on 
January  20,  1911,  Funk  fell  back  on  the  final  date  of  January 
21,  1911.  .•rrtf.ajj 

Think  of  it !  Seven  dates  set  by  my  accusing  witnesses  for 
an  interview  that  never  was  held!  In  a  desperate  effort  to 
give  some  appearance  of  truth  to  his  original  falsehood,  Funk 
roamed  the  calendars  of  two  years,  clutching  at  dates  all  the 
way  from  "the  other  day," — presumably  shortly  after  May  27, 
1909 — down  to  "a  few  days  after"  February  15,  1911. 

ATTITUDE  OF  THE  BOARD 

And  what  was  the  attitude  of  your  Board  during  this 
shocking  exhibition?  It  was  an  attitude  of  sustained,  serene, 
patient,  trustful  and  hopeful  credulity.  It  listened  with  child- 
like faith  as  Funk  set  each  new  date.  It  was  not  disturbed 
or  in  any  way  surprised  when  Funk  abandoned  these  succes- 
sive dates  because  of  the  introduction  of  proof  which  pro- 

163 


EDWARD  HINES   TO   THE   U.    L.   CLtjB 

claimed  their  falsity,  and  there  were  no  symptons  manifested 
by  the  Board  of  a  weakening  of  this  child-like  faith  in  Funk 
as  the  developments  in  the  proceedings  more  pronouncedly 
shattered  his  veracity.  The  mere  fact  that  Funk  had  told 
four  or  five  conflicting  tales  concerning  a  vital  feature  of  the 
case  was  seemingly  no  indication  to  your  Board  that  Funk 
was  not  the  standard  bearer  of  truth. 

And  what  was  the  attitude  of  certain  members  of  your 
Board  towards  me?  It  was  one  of  unconcealed  hostility,  of 
immovable  bias  and  of  unyielding  prejudice.  I  did  not  make  a 
statement  for  which  I  failed  to  adduce  absolute  proof,  yet  I  was 
compelled  to  listen  to  sneers,  insulting  side  remarks  and 
incredulous  manifestations  concerning  documentary  evi- 
dence which  told  the  unassailable  truth  on  its  very  face. 
Do  you  doubt  that?  Read  the  record! 

And  what  was  the  treatment  accorded  my  witnesses?  The 
men  who  testified  in  my  behalf  were  without  exception  Amer- 
ican citizens  of  clean  morals  and  good  reputations.  They 
testified  of  facts  which  had  occurred  in  the  ordinary  course  of 
events,  of  which  they  had  personal  knowledge  and  in  proof 
of  which  they  presented  verified  data.  Some  of  these  wit- 
nesses were  treated  as  if  they  were  the  paid  accomplices  of 
a  crime.  They  were  subjected  to  cross-examinations  by  Funk's 
attorneys  and  by  certain  members  of  the  Board  by  language 
and  in  a  manner  at  times  openly  discourteous. 

It  is  a  disagreeable  task,  but  I  will  give  one  of  a  score  of 
instances  which  shows  the  attitude  of  the  prosecution  towards 
witnesses  who  had  the  temerity  to  tell  before  your  Board  the 
truth  which  refuted  the  falsehoods  on  which  the  case  against 
me  was  predicated. 

The  testimony  of  Reverend  James  F.  Green  to  the  effect 
that  I  was  with  him  in  Philadelphia  until  midnight  of  January 
20,  precluded  the  possibility  that  I  could  have  been  in  Chicago 
on  January  21.  This  testimony  was  fortified  by  other  witnesses, 
and  by  documentary  proof,  but  Attorney  Loesch  reserved  the 
vials  of  his  wrath  for  this  clergyman,  and  in  the  absence  of 

164 


EDWARD   MINES  TO  THE   U.    L.   CLUB 

Father  Green  from  the  Board  room  made  this  shocking  asser- 
tion: 

"Now,  I  don't  believe  Father  Green.  That  is  the  absolute 
fact!  I  dont  believe  him!"  (1145) 

You  may  rest  assured  that  Loesch  never  would  have  made 
that  remark  in  the  presence  of  Father  Green.  At  the  earliest 
opportunity  I  called  Loesch  to  account  for  this  insult  (1148)  : 

MR.  HINES  :  Mr.  Chairman,  I  don't  feel  that  I  can  sit 
still  and  have  counsel  class  Father  Green  as  a  perjurer  in 
this  case.  Now,  I  will  demand  an  opportunity  to  bring  here 
from  Philadelphia  the  gentleman  we  (Father  Green  and 
I)  called  on,  and  I  will  have  him  here  as  quick  as  a  train 
can  bring  him  here.  I  think  that  is  desired,  when  a  man 
of  such  standing  as  Father  Green,  not  only  in  Chicago  but 
in  the  United  States,  is  classed  as  a  perjurer! 

MR.  LOESCH  :    I  didn't  class  him  as  a  perjurer. 

MR.  HINES:    You  did. 

MR.  LOESCH:  I  did  not.  I  said  I  didn't  believe  him. 
That  was  not  classing  him  as  a  perjurer.  He  was  not 
under  oath. 

No,  Father  Green  was  not  under  oath  before  your  Board. 
Neither  was  Clarence  S.  Funk,  but  the  plain  inference  of  the 
language  of  Loesch,  attorney  before  your  Board  for  Funk, 
is  that  he  believes  that  Father  Green  told  falsehoods  before 
that  Board,  and  that  this  clergyman  committed  that  crime 
against  God  because  of  the  knowledge  that  no  earthly  tribunal 
could  hold  him  to  account  for  perjury!  Was  a  greater  and 
more  uncalled-for  insult  ever  given  a  clergyman?  Does  the 
Loesch  plea  of  immunity  from  perjury  in  any  hearing  before 
your  Board  account  for  the  class  of  testimony  given  by  Clar- 
ence S.  Funk?  Did  Attorney  Loesch  advise  Funk  that  nothing 
which  he  might  say  before  your  Board  could  convict  him  of 
perjury?  Was  the  legal  constraint  the  only  one  considered  by 
Funk  and  his  attorney? 

THE  CANDOR  OF  FUNK 

Here  is  an  illuminating  incident  showing  the  character  and 
candor  of  Funk : 

165 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE  U.   L.   CLUB 

I  presented,  under  oath  before  the  Dillingham  Committee, 
the  evidence  which  absolutely  established  the  fact  that  I  was 
not  in  Chicago  on  or  near  February  15,  1911,  and  therefore 
could  not  have  held  the  interview  alleged  by  Funk  to  have  taken 
place  at  that  time.  This  was  the  most  important  of  the  seven 
alleged  dates  fixed  by  Funk  for  a  single  happening. 

Funk  was  under  cross-examination  before  your  Board  when 
the  following  occurred: 

A  MEMBER  :  "You  knew  that  Mr.  Hines  was  trying  to 
prove  an  alibi,  or  did  prove  an  alibi  during  the  time, 
basing  it  on  a  supposed  interview  after  an  editorial  of  Feb- 
ruary 1 5th.  Did  that  make  an  impression  on  your  mind?" 

MR  FUNK  :    "No." 

A  MEMBER:    "Why  not?" 

MR.  FUNK  :    "Well,  I  don't  want  to  be  offensive." 

MR.  LOESCH  :  "Well,  don't  let  us  have  any  offensive- 
ness.  Leave  it  out." 

MR.  FUNK  :    "It  made  no  impression  on  me."    (673) 

Funk  did  not  want  to  be  offensive!  About  what?  His  lie 
to  the  effect  that  I  called  on  him  on  or  near  February  15,  1911, 
because  of  the  Record-Herald  editorial  of  that  date  had  been 
fully  exposed  before  the  Dillingham  Committee.  Your  Board 
had  already  admitted  that  no  such  interview  could  have  oc- 
curred on  that  date.  Funk's  superior  officials  in  the  Inter- 
national Harvester  Company  later  laid  before  your  Board 
evidence  which  proved  that  they  were  not  in  the  city  on  or 
near  that  date,  and  hence  demonstrated  that  the  story  told  by 
Funk  under  oath  before  the  Dillingham  Committee  was  false! 
Funk  himself  later  fixed  the  alleged  date  of  that  alleged  inter- 
view on  or  near  January  20,  1911,  fixed  it  positively  and  unre- 
servedly, thus  giving  the  lie  to  all  of  his  former  statements, 
and  yet  you  hear  him  sneering  at  my  truthful,  proved  and 
admitted  statement  of  my  whereabouts,  and  insinuating  that 
any  evidence  produced  by  me  was  a  fabrication. 

Not  an  essential  statement  made  by  Clarence  S.  Funk  under 
oath  or  before  your  Board  remains  unimpeached! 

166 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

Not  a  statement  made  by  me  under  oath  or  before  your 
Board  has  been  impeached,  nor  can  the  strict  accuracy  of  any 
detail  of  my  testimony  be  assailed. 

And  yet  Funk  does  not  want  to  be  offensive! 

A  STRANGE  SPECTACLE 

What  a  spectacle  was  thus  presented  at  the  close  of  the 
hearings!  With  their  resources  exhausted,  no  further  sur- 
prises to  spring,  no  new  editorials  to  produce,  no  new  dates 
to  conjecture,  no  more  anonymous  telegrams  to  offer,  no  more 
flimsy  ''theories"  to  advance,  Funk  and  his  attorneys  had  come 
to  the  end  of  their  rope. 

The  prolonged  search  for  a  pretext  which  would  give  an 
excuse  for  my  expulsion  had  failed,  but  that  made  no  difference 
in  the  verdict. 

In  order  to  put  the  prosecution  on  record,  my  attorney  asked 
if  testimony  was  desired  regarding  dates  other  than  those 
which  had  been  advanced  by  Funk  and  disproved.  Chairman 
Sidley  replied  that  the  Board  did  not  care  to  consider  any 
other  dates,  and  then  asked  Attorney  Loesch  if  he  had  anything 
further  to  offer.  Funk's  attorney  made  this  significant  reply : 

"I  will  say  that  the  shifting  backwards  and  forwards  of 
this  has  left  me  in  such  a  state  of  doubt  that  I  am  not  yet 
prepared  to  abandon  that  date  of  the  2ist  .  .  .  That  is  the 
way  it  leaves  my  mind,  or  I  would  not  hesitate  for  a  moment. 
I  will  say  that  on  the  face  of  it  it  looks  as  if  Mr.  Hines  was 
there  on  the  the  21st,  but  there  are  a  lot  of  circumstances  to 
indicate  the  other  thing.  I  do  not  want  to  spend  the  time  of 
arguing  it  over  again."  (1201) 

Here  was  an  admission  of  defeat  from  the  lawyer  who  knew 
that  the  2ist  of  January  was  the  date  of  last  resort,  and  who  fin- 
ally realized  that  it  was  folly  to  contend  that  I  could  have  been 
in  Chicago  on  that  date.  I  have  submitted  enough  of  the 
record  to  indicate  to  you  the  bitterness  and  bias  of  Loesch — 
who  was  one  of  the  signers  of  the  false  charges  against  me,  and 
who  later  became  my  vindictive  prosecutor  before  a  Board  that 

167 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE  U.   L.   CLUB 

gave  him  every  latitude — but  even  Loesch  was  forced  to  admit 
the  impossibility  longer  of  defending  the  theory  to  which  he  had 
committed  himself  and  his  client. 

But  Chairman  Sidley  repeatedly  took  pains  to  inform  me  and 
my  attorney  that  the  Board  would  not  be  bound  by  any  state- 
ments or  admissions  made  by  Funk's  counsel.  This  was  a 
declaration  which  intimated  that  the  Board  considered  itself  the 
real  prosecutor.  This  attitude  became  more  marked  as  the 
successive  dates  and  claims  set  up  by  Funk  and  Loesch  were 
demolished.  It  finally  dawned  on  me  that  no  testimony  or  evi- 
dence that  I  might  offer  would  have  controlling  weight  with  the 
Board,  although  I  knew  that  the  evidence  I  had  produced  estab- 
lished my  innocence  on  the  charges  preferred  against  me. 

The  Constitution  of  the  Union  League  Club  declares  (Article 
TI,  Section  9)  that:  "No  member  shall  be  condemned  without 
an  opportunity  to  be  heard  in  his  defense."  On  what  was  I 
condemned  ?  Surely  not  on  any  charge  considered  before  your 
Board!  If  ever  charges  were  disproved,  these  charges  were 
disproved.  Their  author  stood  discredited  before  your  Board. 
He  stood  convicted  of  open  falsehood.  Overwhelmed  by  that 
humiliating  impeachment,  Funk's  attorney  sought  refuge  in 
silence.  He  dared  advance  no  more  charges.  The  Board  did 
not  bring  forward  any  other  charges,  but  apparently  was  com- 
mitted to  decree  my  expulsion  and  did  so  in  the  face  of  the 
absolute  proof  of  my  innocence. 

It  is  possible  that  a  majority  of  the  Board  actually  believed 
Funk  and  disbelieved  me  when  these  proceedings  were  insti- 
gated, but  it  is  impossible  to  imagine  that  they  believed  Funk 
when  those  hearings  were  terminated.  Why,  then,  did  the 
verdict  ignore  the  plain  import  of  the  evidence? 

I  will  admit  that  it  does  not  seem  possible  that  men  honored 
with  membership  on  the  Board  of  Governors  of  the  Union 
League  Club  could  be  induced  to  accept  exposed  falsehoods 
and  to  reject  proved  truths,  but  the  record  of  my  trial  shows 
that  your  Board  either  did  that  very  thing  or  else  expelled  me 
on  charges  not  made  or  even  suggested,  and  against  which  I 

168 


EDWARD   HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

had  no  "opportunity  to  be  heard  in  my  own  defense" — a  direct 
violation  of  the  spirit  and  words  of  the  constitution  of  the  Club. 


YOUR  BOARD  VERSUS  THE  DILLINGHAM  COMMITTEE 

Here  is  the  answer  that  the  Dillingham  Committee  made 
to  the  finding  of  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Union  League 
Club: 

"It  is  not  proved  that  Edward  Hines  received  $100,000  or 
any  other  sum,  or  that  he  contributed  any  sum  whatsoever  toi 
aid  in  or  obtain  the  election  of  William  Lorimer  to  the  United 
States  Senate.  The  evidence  is  that  he  did  not  raise,  con- 
tribute to  or  expend  such  sum  or  any  sum  whatsoever  to  aid 
or  assist  improperly  in  the  election  of  Senator  Lorimer" 

This  resolution  was  passed  by  the  Dillingham  Committee 
without  a  dissenting  vote,  and  it  was  passed  more  than  two 
months  after  your  Board  had  rendered  against  me  its  unjust 
and  unwarranted  verdict.  This  finding  of  your  Board  did  not 
deceive  the  members  of  that  august  committee.  They  were 
not  influenced  by  this  unjust  verdict  which  sought  to  bolster 
the  shattered  veracity  of  Funk.  These  Senators  had  seen  and 
listened  to  Funk.  They  knew  that  I  told  the  truth,  and  they 
knew  that  Funk  zvas  impeached  as  a  witness  before  them. 

That  resolution  of  vindication  is  my  unquestioned  due.  It 
is  a  declaration  of  my  absolute  innocence.  It  is  a  merited 
rebuke  to  certain  members  of  your  Board  of  Directors.  I 
am  no  longer  the  accused — I  am  the  accuser — and  my  accusa- 
tion is  that  I  was  falsely  charged  before  and  unfairly  tried  and 
unjustly  condemned  by  the  Board  of  Managers  of  the  Union 
League  Club. 

The  wrong  which  these  biased  judges  attempted  to  inflict 
on  me  is  partially  visited  on  you.  The  traditional  regard  of 
your  organization  for  even-handed  justice  has  been  violated. 
The  unfair  blow  struck  at  me  has  taken  something  precious 
from  the  value  of  your  membership.  The  world  may  never 
learn  the  details  of  this  wrong,  but  you  will  not  soon  forget 
that  a  record  of  it  is  preserved  in  the  archives  of  a  Club  founded 

169 


EDWARD   HINES   TO   THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

and  made  glorious  by  men  who  loved  fair  dealing,  and  who 
pledged  their  fortunes,  their  lives  and  their  sacred  honor  to 
thwart  injustice. 

EDWARD  HINES. 


170 


THE  VERDICT  OF  THE  DILLINGHAM 
COMMITTEE. 

On  May  20,  1912,  the  Dillingham  Committee 
made  public  a  report  of  the  results  of  its  prolonged 
investigation  of  the  election  of  Senator  Lorimer. 
A  considerable  portion  of  the  majority  report  was 
devoted  to  a  consideration  of  the  charges  implied 
in  the  testimony  given  by  Clarence  S.  Funk. 

The  preceding  pages  were  already  in  type. 
Please  bear  in  mind  that  the  members  of  the 
Dillingham  Committee  formed  their  estimate  of 
Clarence  S.  Funk  and  of  his  veracity  without  being 
in  possession  of  the  fact  that  he  repudiated  before 
the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Union  League  Club 
much  of  his  testimony  given  under  oath  before  the 
Helm  and  Dillingham  Committees.  The  Senate 
of  the  United  States  and  the  public  still  are  in 
ignorance  of  the  disclosures  made  in  the  preceding 
pages. 

It  is  the  plain  truth  to  assert  that  no  five  mem- 
bers of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  better  de- 
serve the  esteem,  respect  and  confidence  of  their 
constituents  than  do  the  Senators  who  formulated 
and  signed  the  majority  report  of  the  Dillingham 
Committee  from  which  the  following  extracts  are 
taken.  The  honesty,  loyalty,  ability  and  pa- 
triotism of  Senators  Dillingham,  Jones,  Gamble, 

Fletcher  and  Johnson  are  not  calleld  in  question 

m 


EDWARD   HINES   TO   THE    U.    L.    CLUB 

even  by  the  most  partisan  and  vindictive  of  the 
enemies  of  Senator  Lorimer.  They  might  have 
gained  political  advantage  by  yielding  to  a  popu- 
lar prejudice  deliberately  fostered  by  an  unscrupu- 
lous clique  of  newspapers,  but  they  preferred  to 
be  governed  by  the  facts. 

The  following  extracts  refer  to  that  part  of  the 
investigation  precipitated  by  the  false  testimony 
given  by  Clarence  S.  Funk  and  intended  to  reflect 
on  me.  I  take  the  liberty  of  emphasizing  in  italics 
certain  phrases  and  passages  of  special  signifi- 
cance. The  Committee  thus  pays  its  respects  to 
the  peculiar  activities  of  H.  H.  Kohlsaat,  then 
Editor  of  the  Chicago  Record-Herald : 

While  the  question  of  Mr.  Lorimer's  right  to  a  seat  in  the 
United  States  Senate  was  under  consideration  and  debate  in 
that  body,  to  wit,  on  January  17,  1911,  a  committee  was  ap- 
pointed by  the  Senate  of  the  Illinois  Legislature,  known  as  the 
Helm  committee,  to  investigate  the  circumstances  connected 
with  the  election  of  Mr.  Lorimer  as  a  Senator  of  the  United 
States  from  the  State  of  Illinois.  By  a  peculiar  coincidence 
Mr.  H.  H.  Kohlsaat,  editor  of  the  Chicago  Record-Herald,  on 
the  same  day  addressed  to  the  Hon.  Elihu  Root,  a  Senator  of 
the  United  States  from  the  State  of  New  York,  the  following 
personal  letter,  containing  information  which,  if  true,  would 
have  had  a  direct  bearing  upon  the  question  at  issue  before 
the  Helm  committee  as  well  as  in  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  but  the  source  of  which  information  and  its  authenticity 
he  could  not  make  public  or  consent  to  have  investigated  be- 
cause of  the  circumstances  under  which  he  had  received  the 
same.  The  information  Mr.  Kohlsaat  says  was  given  to  him 
in  confidence  and,  as  a  newspaper  man,  he  felt  "the  same  obli- 
gation to  maintain  secrecy  that  a  priest  does  of  a  confession." 

The  letter  was  as  follows : 

172 


EDWARD   HINES   TO   THE    U.    L.    CLUB 

CHICAGO,  ILL.,  January  17,  1911. 
Senator  Elihu  Root,  Washington,  D.  C. 

My  Dear  Senator:  I  have  just  received  a  call  from 
some  well-known  people  here,  among  them  Mr.  Walter 
L.  Fisher,  asking  me  if  I  would  not  write  you  and  tell 
you  of  an  incident  in  the  Lorimer  senatorial  election.  My 
friends  thought  that  if  you  had  this  personal  knowledge 
it  would  be  of  assistance  to  you  in  strengthening  your 
belief  that  money  was  used  to  elect  Lorimer.  The  infor- 
mation was  given  to  me  in  confidence,  and  as  a  newspaper 
man  I  feel  the  same  obligation  to  maintain  secrecy  that  a 
priest  does  of  a  confession. 

Some  time  last  June  I  met  a  friend  who  is  general  man- 
ager of  a  Chicago  corporation  with  a  capital  of  over 
$25,000,000.  He  said,  "I  have  been  intending  to  call  on 
you  for  some  days  to  tell  you  of  an  incident  that  occurred 
right  after  Lorimer's  election  a  year  ago.  I  had  a  visit 
from  Edward  Hines,  the  lumberman,  and  he  told  me  that 
Lorimer's  friends  had  had  the  opportunity  of  electing  him 
to  the  Senate  by  putting  up  $100,000;  that  they  had  only  a 
few  days  before  the  adjournment  of  the  legislature,  and 
could  not  take  time  to  go  around  and  raise  the  money,  so 
a  half  dozen  of  Lorimer's  friends  underwrote  the  $100,000 
and  gave  it  to  the  proper  agent.  Lorimer  was  elected, 
and  we  are  now  asking  some  of  the  corporations  to  pay 
in  their  share.  I  am  taking  care  of  the  down  town  dis- 
trict, and  another  man  (mentioning  his  name)  has  charge 
of  the  stockyards.  We  figure  that  your  share  will  be 
$10,000."  My  friend  answered  substantially  as  follows : 
"I  can  not  give  you  any  money  for  two  reasons:  First, 
we  are  not  in  that  kind  of  business;  and  second,  if  you 
have  gotten  yourselves  into  a  hole,  why  should  you  expect 
us  to  pull  you  out  ?" 

On  the  strength  of  this  statement  the  Record-Herald 
has  explicitly  stated  several  times,  editorially,  that  $100,000 
was  raised  to  buy  Lorimer's  election,  and  we  have  never 
had  a  protest  from  anybody  on  it.  The  man  who  gave  me 
this  information  is  absolutely  reliable.  He  had  no  object 
in  telling  me  a  falsehood,  and  I  believe  him  thoroughly. 

When  Col.  Roosevelt  was  here  on  his  way  to  Cheyenne 
I  told  him  of  the  incident,  and  it  was  the  prime  motive 
that  prompted  him  to  decline  to  sit  at  the  Hamilton  Club 
banquet  with  Lorimer. 

Hoping  that  this  may  be  of  some  value  to  you,  believe 
me,  Yours  sincerely, 

H.  H.  KOHLSAAT. 
173 


EDWARD   MINES  TO   THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

On  February  u,  1911,  Senator  Root  replied  to  this  letter, 
strongly  urging  Mr.  Kohlsaat  to  induce  the  friend  who  had 
given  him  the  information  upon  which  this  letter  was  based 
to  disclose  his  identity. 

Upon  receipt  of  Senator  Root's  letter,  Mr.  Kohlsaat  sent  for 
Mr.  Clarence  S.  Funk,  general  manager  of  the  International 
Harvester  Co.,  the  friend  to  whom  he  referred  in  his  letter  to 
Senator  Root  as  his  informant,  but  whose  name  he  had  not 
revealed,  and  showing  him  the  letter  told  him  that  he  was  the 
only  man  who  could  settle  that  question.  Mr.  Funk,  after  full 
consideration,  refused  to  allow  his  name  to  be  given,  and  on 
February  15,  1911,  Mr.  Kohlsaat  so  informed  Senator  Root. 

On  the  same  day,  February  15,  1911,  Mr.  Kohlsaat  published 
in  the  Record-Herald  an  editorial  in  which  the  following  lan- 
guage was  used: 

Do  we  know  all  there  is  to  be  known  concerning  the 
$100,000  fund  that  was  raised  to  pay  for  Lorimer's  votes? 

This  attracted  wide  attention  and  caused  inquiries  to  be 
made  of  Mr.  Kohlsaat  by  Senator  La  Follette  and  others  who 
were  anxious  to  ascertain  upon  what  authority  such  statement 
and  inquiry  were  made,  and  what  the  facts  were  with  respect 
to  the  raising  of  the  alleged  fund. 

Senator  La  Follette  telegraphed  Mr.  Kohlsaat  asking  for  in- 
formation regarding  the  allegation  of  the  existence  of  a  fund 
of  $100,000,  and  received  in  reply  the  following  telegram: 

CHICAGO,  February  21,  1911. 
Senator  La  Follette,  Washington,  D.  C.: 

If  I  had  all  the  details  of  the  raising  and  disposition  of 
the  $100,000,  would  not  have  asked  the  editorial  question. 
That  $100,000  was  raised  for  that  purpose  I  have  abso- 
lutely no  shadow  of  doubt,  but  can  not  prove.  We  have 
made  the  assertion  a  number  of  times  editorially.  The 
assertion  has  never  been  challenged.  You  are  the  first 
person  to  ask  for  particulars.  H.  H.  KOHLSAAT. 

Senator  La  Follette  was  exceedingly  anxious  to  secure  the 
information  and  endeavored  to  induce  Mr.  Kohlsaat  to  go  to 

174 


EDWARD  MINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

Washington,  and,  failing,  wired  his  friend,  Mr.  Charles  R. 
Crane,  to  see  and  induce  Mr.  Kohlsaat  to  do  so.  Mr.  Crane 
visited  Mr.  Kohlsaat,  exhibited  the  telegram,  and  urged  him 
to  go.  Mr.  Kohlsaat  repeated  to  Mr.  Crane  the  story  he  had 
written  to  Senator  Root,  but  refused  either  to  visit  Washing- 
ton or  to  reveal  the  name  of  his  informant.  Immediately  there- 
after Mr.  Kohlsaat  sent  the  following  telegram  to  Senator 
La  Follette : 

CHICAGO,  ILL.,  February  22,  1911. 
Senator  Robert  M.  La  Follette,  Washington,  D.  C.: 

Please  ask  Senator  Root  to  show  you  my  letters  of  Jan- 
uary 17  and  February  15.  I  gave  Charles  Crane  this 
morning  my  reasons  for  not  giving  names.  He  agreed 
with  me  that  it  would  not  be  just  right  or  wise  to  do  so. 

H.  H.  KOHLSAAT. 

Neither  Senator  made  public  the  contents  of  such  letters  and 
telegrams  during  the  debates  in  the  Senate,  and  Mr.  Lorimer's 
right  to  retain  his  seat  in  the  United  States  Senate  was  deter- 
mined in  his  favor  by  vote  of  that  body  on  the  ist  day  of 
March,  1911. 

Almost  a  month  thereafter  the  Helm  committee,  which  did 
not  commence  taking  testimony  until  March  28,  1911,  sum- 
moned Mr.  Kohlsaat  as  a  witness  to  testify  regarding  the  edi- 
torial in  question. 

******* 

RESULTS  OF  THE  INVESTIGATION. 

Before  taking  up  for  examination  the  various  lines  of  evi- 
dence which  have  a  bearing  upon  the  question  submitted  to  the 
committee  for  its  investigation,  the  committee  desires  to  call 
attention  to  the  fact,  well  known  to  the  Senate  but  apparently 
unknown  to  a  large  proportion  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  that  the  investigation  is  not  complicated  by  any  charges 
which  involve  Mr.  Lorimer's  private  character,  the  discharge 
of  his  public  duties,  or  any  other  charge  upon  which  his  expul- 
sion from  the  Senate  might  be  predicated. 

The  only  duty  which  was  laid  upon  the  committee  in  the 
first  investigation  or  which  has  been  laid  upon  this  committee 

175 


EDWARD   HINES  TO  THE  U.   L.   CLUB 

is  "To  investigate  whether  in  the  election  of  William  Lorimer 
as  a  Senator  of  the  United  States  from  the  State  of  Illinois 
there  were  used  and  employed  corrupt  practices." 

THE  NEWLY  DISCOVERED  EVIDENCE. 

The  newly  discovered  evidence,  to  which  reference  is  made 
in  the  preambles  of  the  resolutions  offered  in  the  Senate  and 
to  which  reference  was  made  in  the  debates  on  the  same,  and 
the  supposed  existence  of  which  resulted  in  the  adoption  of 
the  resolution  of  the  Senate  under  which  this  investigation  has 
been  conducted,  all  bore  upon  the  question  whether  a  fund  of 
$100,000  was  raised  by  or  through  the  efforts  of  Edward  Hines 
and  others  acting  with  him,  or  by  any  other  person  or  persons, 
with  or  without  his  knowledge,  which  was  corruptly  used  or 
expended  in  whole  or  in  part  to  secure  the  election  of  William 
Lorimer  as  a  Senator  of  the  United  States  from  the  State  of 
Illinois  by  the  Legislature  of  that  Commonwealth  on  the  26th 
day  of  May,  1909. 

The  committee,  after  the  most  thorough  investigation,  dur- 
ing which  every  source  of  information  has  been  probed,  has 
failed  to  find  any  evidence  that  a  fund  of  $100,000,  or  of  any 
other  sum,  was  raised  or  spent  by  Edward  Hines  or  by  him  in 
connection  with  others,  or  with  his  knowledge,  or  by  any  other 
person  or  persons,  to  be  used  in  or  in  connection  with  the  elec- 
tion of  Mr.  Lorimer  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  or  that 
any  corrupt  practices  were  employed  in  such  election. 

After  quoting  some  of  Funk's  conflicting  testi- 
mony relative  to  the  Union  League  interview,  the 
report  says: 

HOW  THE  STORY  WAS  REGARDED  AND   HOW  IT  WAS  USED. 

The  subsequent  history  of  this  incident,  so  far  as  Mr.  Funk's 
conduct  is  concerned,  bears  out  the  conclusion  that  even  if  it 
occurred  as  he  testified  he  regarded  it  as  unimportant.  While 
he  testified  that  soon  after  its  occurrence  he  communicated  it 

176 


EDWARD   MINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

to  the  president  and  to  the  general  counsel  of  the  International 
Harvester  Co.  and  repeated  the  substance  of  it  to  the  assistant 
manager,  it  was  never  again  mentioned  between  them  for  a 
period  of  21  months,  and  the  only  other  person  to  whom,  so  far 
as  the  evidence  shows,  he  ever  communicated  it  until  he  tes- 
tified before  the  Helm  committee  in  April,  1911,  was  Mr.  H.  H. 
Kohlsaat,  editor  of  the  Chicago  Record-Herald,  a  bitter  politi- 
cal enemy  of  Mr.  Lorimer,  with  whom  he  had  a  street  con- 
versation in  Chicago  immediately  after  the  publication  of 
White's  jack-pot  story  in  the  Chicago  Tribune  on  April 
30,  1910. 

That  he  did  not  then  consider  the  story  as  a  factor  of  any 
value  in  the  vigorous  investigations  which  followed  the  pub- 
lication of  the  White  story  by  the  legal  authorities  of  Cook 
and  Sangamon  Counties  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  he  not 
only  pledged  Mr.  Kohlsaat  to  secrecy,  but  that  he  did  not  dis- 
close the  story  to  the  law  officers  of  either  of  these  counties, 
nor  afterwards  to  the  Senate  Committee  on  Privileges  and 
Elections,  which  was  charged  with  the  duty  of  investigating 
the  whole  subject,  nor  to  any  tribunal  which  might  have  deter- 
mined the  truth  or  falsity  of  his  version  of  the  interview  be- 
tween himself  and  Edward  Hines  or  of  the  truth  or  falsity  of 
the  declarations  alleged  by  him  to  have  been  made  by  Mr. 
Hines  to  him  in  that  conversation. 

For  20  years  prior  to  that  time  Mr.  Kohlsaat  had  been 
strongly  opposed  to  Mr.  Lorimer  politically,  and  he  was  in  full 
sympathy  with  the  investigation  then  in  progress  under  the 
direction  of  the  State's  attorney  of  Cook  County,  but  he  made 
no  effort  to  substantiate  Mr.  Funk's  story,  nor  did  he  attempt 
to  ascertain  whether  there  was  any  foundation  for  the  state- 
ment which  Mr.  Funk  said  Mr.  Hines  made  to  him  in  regard 
to  the  raising  of  a  fund  of  $100,000;  nor  did  he,  so  far  as  the 
evidence  shows,  ever  discuss  with  Mr.  Funk  the  advisability 
of  communicating  this  information  to  the  prosecuting  authori- 
ties of  Cook  County,  nor  did  he  do  it  himself.  That  he  looked 
upon  the  story  as  a  newspaper  and  political  asset  is  apparent. 

177 


EDWARD  HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

In  his  testimony  before  the  Helm  committee  at  Springfield, 
Mr.  Kohlsaat  says : 

He  gave  it  to  me  in  confidence.  I  told  him  that  the 
confidence  would  not  be  betrayed.  With  that  feeling  of 
perfect  security  that  this  man's  information  that  he  gave 
me  was  absolutely  reliable,  I  took  the  position  that  the 
election  should  be  investigated  and  came  out  editorially 
and  backed  the  Tribune  in  its  fight.  *  *  *  I  was  so 
impressed  with  the  truth  of  this  that  I  came  out  editorially 
next  day  after  this  and  backed  the  Tribune  in  their  story, 
and  have  done  it  ever  since.  (Helm  report,  p.  58.) 

It  appears  also  that  Mr.  Kohlsaat  immediately  communicated 
this  information  which  he  had  received  in  confidence  to  Mr. 
James  Keeley,  the  general  manager  and  editor  of  the  Chicago 
Tribune,  in  confidence,  who  made  use  of  it  as  early  as  May 
2,  1910,  in  an  editorial  paragraph  headed,  "Was  it  sawdust," 
followed  by  the  inquiry,  "Who  furnished  the  dust,  to  use  a 
colloquialism,  to  bribe  the  legislature?"  and  on  frequent  occa- 
sions thereafter. 

Mr.  Kohlsaat  also  testified  that  he  communicated  the  story 
in  confidence  to  Victor  F.  Lawson,  owner  of  the  Chicago  Daily 
News,  going  so  far  as  to  reveal  to  him  the  name  of  Mr.  Funk 
as  his  informant,  and  that  the  information  so  conveyed  to  Mr. 
Lawson  thereafter — 

influenced  his  editorial  policy  during  the  entire  period  of 
the  Lorimer  investigation  (Kohlsaat,  440),  and  it  gave 
him  confidence  to  be  very  specific  in  his  editorials  in 
regard  to  the  belief  that  money  was  used  to  buy  the  elec- 
tion. (Kohlsaat,  440.) 

Thus  it  appears  that  the  three  most  powerful  agencies  for 
the  creation  of  public  sentiment  in  the  Central  West  acted  to- 
gether in  a  common  purpose  to  convince  the  public  mind  that 
the  election  of  William  Lorimer  as  Senator  from  the  State  of 
Illinois  had  been  brought  about  by  corrupt  methods. 

The  testimony  further  shows  that  Mr.  Kohlsaat  related  this 
story  to  Theodore  Roosevelt,  likewise  in  confidence,  late  in  the 
month  of  August,  1910,  when  the  latter  made  a  brief  stop  in 

178 


EDWARD   HlNES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

Chicago  on  his  way  to  Cheyenne.  September  8  following,  Col. 
Roosevelt  returned  to  Chicago  to  attend  a  banquet  which  had 
been  tendered  to  him  by  the  Hamilton  Club  of  that  city.  On 
the  morning  of  that  day  he  publicly  announced  that  he  would 
not  attend  such  banquet  if  Senator  Lorimer  was  to  be  pres- 
ent, with  the  result  that,  although  a  member  of  the  club,  Mr. 
Lorimer  absented  himself  on  that  occasion.  The  public  press 
teemed  with  accounts  of  this  incident,  producing  a  profound 
sensation,  and  intensifying  the  prejudice  in  the  public  mind 
against  Mr.  Lorimer.  Col.  Roosevelt  subsequently  wrote  Mr. 
Kohlsaat  that  the  story  which  the  latter  had  told  him  as  com- 
ing from  Mr.  Hines  was  the  reason  he  declined  to  attend  the 
dinner  if  Mr.  Lorimer  was  to  be  present. 

Mr.  Kohlsaat  repeated  the  story,  told  him  in  confidence, 
wherever  it  would  do  the  most  direct  and  positive  injury  to 
Mr.  Lorimer,  and  always  unknown  to  him,  "observing  the 
cardinal  principle  of  an  honorable,  upright  newspaper  man," 
and  thus  putting  into  practice  observing  his  obligation  to 
maintain  "the  same  secrecy  that  a  priest  does  of  a  confession." 

During  the  summer  of  1910  the  grand  juries  of  Cook  and 
Sangamon  Counties  made  exhaustive  investigations  of  the 
charges  of  corruption  in  connection  with  the  election  of  Senator 
Lorimer;  indictments  were  returned,  and  Lee  O'Neil  Browne 
was  tried  and  acquitted  on  a  charge  of  having  bribed  Charles 
A.  White  to  vote  for  Mr.  Lorimer ;  on  the  2Oth  of  September 
the  Subcommittee  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Privileges  and 
Elections,  charged  with  investigating  the  question  whether  Mr. 
Lorimer's  election  had  been  secured  by  corrupt  practices,  met 
in  Chicago  and  remained  in  session  there  for  three  weeks. 

During  that  entire  period  the  evidence  discloses  no  instance 
when  Mr.  McCormick,  Mr.  Bancroft,  Mr.  Funk,  Mr.  Kohl- 
saat, Mr.  Lawson,  Mr.  Keeley,  or  Col.  Roosevelt  saw  fit  to 
bring  the  information  contained  in  Mr.  Funk's  statement  to 
Mr.  Kohlsaat  to  the  attention  of  any  person  connected  with 
any  investigation  or  prosecution  above  referred  to ;  nor  does  it 
disclose  the  fact  that  any  of  these  gentlemen  ever  suggested 
to  Mr.  Funk  the  propriety  of  revealing  the  declaration  alleged 

179 


EDWARD   MINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

to  have  been  made  to  him  by  Mr.  Hines  to  any  public  officer 
or  to  any  investigating  body,  so  that  its  truth  or  falsity,  and  its 
value  as  evidence,  might  be  properly  determined. 

The  evidence  further  shows  that  although  Mr.  Keeley  dis- 
closed this  information  to  his  counsel,  Mr.  Alfred  Austrian, 
who  represented  the  Chicago  Tribune  before  the  first  senatorial 
investigating  committee,  no  suggestion  was  made  by  either  of 
them  to  that  committee  or  any  member  thereof  concerning  the 
Funk  story,  nor  did  Mr.  Hines's  name  appear  on  the  list  of 
names  of  persons  furnished  by  Mr.  Austrian  to  be  summoned 
as  witnesses  before  that  committee. 

All  the  facts  adduced  by  the  evidence  show  that  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States  was  permitted  to  take  final  action  on  the 
question  of  the  right  of  Mr.  Lorimer  to  retain  his  seat  without 
any  information  whatever,  as  a  body,  of  the  existence  of  the 
Funk  story,  and  the  first  knowledge  of  this  incident  reached 
the  Senate  through  the  public  newspaper  accounts  of  the  tes- 
timony given  by  Mr.  Funk  before  the  Helm  committee  at 
Springfield,  April  5,  1911,  more  than  a  month  after  the  final 
action  of  the  Senate  in  confirming  Mr.  Lorimer's  right  to  his 
seat  in  that  body. 

The  testimony  of  Mr.  Funk  stands  uncorroborated,  either 
by  the  testimony  of  any  other  witness  having  knowledge  of 
what  occurred  at  this  interview  between  Mr.  Funk  and  Mr. 
Hines  or  by  any  circumstances  which  tend  to  establish  his  ver- 
sion of  such  interview. 

'The  acquaintance  between  Mr.  Funk  and  Mr.  Hines  had 
been  of  a  casual,  passing  character.  While  both  were  mem- 
bers of  the  Union  League  Club,  both  were  exceedingly  busy 
men  and  met  but  few  times  in  a  year.  They  had  no  personal 
dealings  with  each  other  and  their  personal  associations  were 
confined  to  occasional  meetings  at  the  club,  on  railway  trains, 
on  the  streets,  at  hotels,  and  in  other  public  places. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  it  was  known  to  Mr.  Hines  that  the 
relations  existing  between  the  officers  of  the  International  Har- 
vester Co.  and  Mr.  Lorimer  were  those  of  opponents  rather 
than  friends,  it  is  improbable  that  he  would  seek  from  Mr. 

180 


EDWARD   MINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

Funk,  the  representative  of  that  corporation,  a  contribution  to 
aid  in  the  election  of  Mr.  Lorimer;  and  it  is  inconceivable  that 
Mr.  Hines,  if  guilty  of  an  infamous  crime,  would  have  unre- 
servedly revealed  it  under  the  circumstances  described  by  Mr. 
Funk,  and  in  any  case  to  a  person  with  whom  he  had  so  slight 
an  acquaintance,  and  at  a  time  when  the  election  was  so  fresh 
in  the  minds  of  the  public.  And  particularly  when  it  appears 
that  at  no  previous  time  nor  even  at  that  time  did  Mr.  Hines 
know  whom  Mr.  Funk  preferred  for  United  States  Senator. 

That  Mr.  Funk  was  a  more  than  willing  witness  against  Mr. 
Hines  appears  from  his  testimony.  When  asked  how  he  knew 
whom  Mr.  Hines  preferred  for  United  States  Senator,  he 
replied : 

You  would  see  his  name  in  the  paper  every  few  days 
in  connection  with  activities  at  Springfield,  or  hear  it  as 
a  matter  of  general  talk  in  the  streets.  (Funk,  544.) 

On  cross-examination,  when  his  mind  was  specifically 
directed  to  this  subject,  Mr.  Funk  testified,  among  other  things, 
as  follows : 

Mr.  HYNES.  You  spoke,  Mr.  Funk,  of  Mr.  Hines's 
activities  at  Springfield.  What  did  you  have  reference 
to  there? 

Mr.  FUNK.  Why,  it  was  a  matter  of  common  talk  that 
he  was  very  active  down  there. 

Mr.  HYNES.  What  did  you  understand  he  was  doing 
down  there? 

Mr.  FUNK.  Pulling  wires  for  the  election  of  Senator 
Lorimer. 

Mr.  HYNES.  What  do  you  mean  by  that?  What  was 
he  doing?  How  long  was  he  down  there  in  Springfield 
before  the  election? 

Mr.  FUNK.    I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  HYNES.  How  long  before  the  election  did  you  hear 
that? 

Mr.  FUNK.    I  heard  it  frequently.    (595.) 

****** 

Mr.  HYNES.  Do  you  remember  anybody  who  told  you 
that  he  was  down  at  Springfield  active  there  in  pulling 
wires  for  Senator  Lorimer? 

181 


EDWARD   HINES   TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

Mr.  FUNK.    I  think  that  was  a  matter  of  common  talk. 

Mr.  HYNES.    Can  you  tell  me  anybody  that  said  it  ? 

Mr.  FUNK.  I  met  a  great  many  people  that  talked 
about  it.  I  can  not  recall  any  particular  man  that  made 
that  particular  statement.  (595-) 

These  statements  must  be  considered  in  connection  with  the 
fact  that  Mr.  Hines  was  not  at  Springfield  during  the  session 
of  the  legislature  that  elected  Mr.  Lorimer,  had  not  been  there 
for  three  years  prior  thereto,  and  did  not  go  there  afterwards 
until  summoned  as  a  witness  before  the  Helm  committee  nearly 
two  years  after  such  election  and  that  such  "reports"  must 
have  had  birth  in  Mr.  Funk's  imagination. 

Confessing  his  inability  to  substantiate  his  version  of  the 
interview  with  Mr.  Hines,  Mr.  Funk  gave  as  a  reason  for  keep- 
ing the  same  secret  that  it  was  simply  his  word  against  that  of 
Mr.  Hines. 

There  the  case  might  have  rested  but  for  the  fact  that  Mr. 
Funk  afterwards  attempted  to  corroborate  his  version  of  such 
interview  by  testifying  that  a  day  or  two  following  the  publi- 
cation of  the  Record-Herald  editorial  of  February  15,  1911,  21 
months  after  the  interview  took  place,  Mr.  Hines  visited  Funk's 
office  in  the  Harvester  Building  in  Chicago,  where,  as  Mr. 
Funk  testified  before  this  committee,  the  following  occurred : 

Mr.  FUNK.  Mr.  Hines  arrived  at  my  office  one  morn- 
ing shortly  after  I  got  there,  about  9  o'clock,  and  he  was 
admitted  to  my  room.  He  seemed  to  be  considerably 
agitated,  and  he  immediately  began  to  talk  with  me  about 
our  former  conversation. 

Mr.  MARBLE.    What  did  he  say? 

Mr.  FUNK.  I  can  not  repeat  it  verbatim;  but  in  sub- 
stance he  undertook  to  refresh  my  memory  as  to  what 
our  previous  conversation  had  been. 

Mr.  MARBLE.    As  nearly  as  you  can,  give  what  he  said. 

Senator  KERN.  It  is  important  that  we  should  have 
the  substance  of  that  conversation  if  you  can  not  remem- 
ber the  exact  words. 

Mr.  FUNK.  The  substance  of  it  was  that  he  did  not 
want  me  to  misunderstand  our  talk  the  other  day;  that 
he  had  not  meant  to  say  that  any  money  was  used,  but 
that  he  was  only  discussing  with  me  in  a  general  way  the 

182 


EDWARD   HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

situation  down  there;  and  that  he  got  to  thinking  about 
it  afterwards  and  thought  that  I  might  not  have  under- 
stood it,  and  he  was  back  there  to  clear  it  up  for  me. 

Mr.  Hines  denies  in  the  most  positive  terms  that  this  alleged 
interview  ever  occurred,  and  testified  that  from  and  after  Feb- 
ruary 6,  preceding  the  date  of  it,  until  the  morning  of  March 
5  following  he  was  not  in  Chicago,  and  that  such  an  interview 
was  a  physical  impossibility.  His  testimony  to  that  effect  and 
to  the  effect  that  he  spent  that  entire  period  in  the  East,  and 
with  the  exception  of  a  day  in  New  York  and  one  in  Philadel- 
phia, he  was  constantly  in  Washington,  is  fully  sustained  by 
both  personal  and  documentary  evidence  of  a  character  which 
leaves  no  doubt  of  the  fact. 

The  testimony  of  Edward  Thomas,  C.  R.  Nelson,  Thomas  F. 
Toomey,  Albert  L.  Swift,  and  the  production  of  hotel  bills, 
letters,  telegrams,  books,  and  other  documentary  evidence  fully 
sustain  this  finding  of  the  committee. 

The  attempt  and  failure  of  Mr.  Funk  thus  to  substantiate 
his  version  of  his  interview  with  Mr.  Hines  does  not  serve  to 

increase  confidence  in  the  correctness  of  the  same. 

******* 

Much  time  has  been  spent  and  space  given  to  a  discus- 
sion of  what  occurred  during  the  brief  conversation  between 
Messrs.  Funk  and  Hines  on  May  27,  1909,  not  because  it  is 
conclusive  of  the  facts  alleged,  but  because  it  was  the  con- 
trolling factor  in  the  action  of  the  Senate  in  reopening  the 
case  and  in  the  appointment  of  this  committee. 

The  vital  question  to  be  determined  is  whether  a  fund  of 
$100,000  was  in  fact  raised  by  or  through  the  efforts  of  Ed- 
ward Hines  and  others  acting  with  him,  or  by  any  other  per- 
son or  persons  with  his  knowledge,  which  was  corruptly  used 
or  expended  in  whole  or  in  part  to  secure  the  election  of  Wil- 
liam Lorimer  as  a  Senator  of  the  United  States  from  the  State 
of  Illinois. 

WAS  SUCH  A  FUND  RAISED? 

After  the  most  searching  inquiry  the  committee  is  unable  to 
find  any  evidence  that  any  sum  of  money  was  raised  or  con- 

183 


EDWARD   HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

tributed  by  Mr.  Hines,  or  through  his  suggestion,  or  with  his 
knozvledge,  to  be  used  corruptly  in  securing  the  election  of  Mr. 
Lorimer  as  a  Senator  of  the  United  States  from  the  State  of 
Illinois,  or  that  Mr.  Hines  participated  in  any  corrupt  practices 
of  any  nature  in  connection  with  such  election,  nor  can  the 
committee  find  that  any  such  fund  was  raised  by  any  person 
or  persons  to  be  so  used.  The  committee  goes  further  and  re- 
ports that  it  finds  no  evidence  that  any  such  fund  was  ever  con- 
templated by  Mr.  Hines,  or  suggested  to  him  by  any  of  the 
gentlemen  with  whom  he  conferred  before  the  election  of  Mr. 
Lorimer  regarding  the  election  of  a  Senator  of  the  United 
States  from  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  in  fact  there  is  no  proof 
that  Mr.  Hines  raised  or  furnished  or  spent  improperly  any 
money  to  aid  in  the  election  of  Mr.  Lorimer. 

MR.  HINES'S  INTEREST  IN  THE  ELECTION. 

In  connection  with  this  finding  the  committee  thought  best 
to  incorporate  at  this  point  a  statement  of  what  the  evidence 
discloses  regarding  the  activities  of  Mr.  Hines  in  connection 
with  the  election  of  Mr.  Lorimer. 

While  Mr.  Hines  has  had  a  general  acquaintance  with  Mr. 
Lorimer  covering  about  19  years,  he  has  never  had  any  busi- 
ness relations  with  him,  nor  has  Senator  Lorimer  been  the 
owner  of  stock  in  any  corporation  in  which  Mr.  Hines  has 
been  interested;  and  although  Mr.  Hines  was  a  resident  of 
Mr.  Lorimer's  congressional  district  about  nine  years,  he  never 
took  any  interest  in  the  political  fortunes  of  the  latter,  beyond 
voting  for  him,  except  in  the  year  1906,  when  horses  and 
wagons  of  the  Edward  Hines  Lumber  Co.  were  loaned  to  the 
Lorimer  committee  for  a  street  parade,  and  Mr.  Hines  secured 
the  signatures  of  25  or  30  business  men  to  a  circular  which 
was  sent  out  to  voters,  showing  Mr.  Lorimer  to  be  a  protec- 
tionist, and  the  value  of  his  work  in  favor  of  deep  waterways. 
Mr.  Hines  does  not  remember  whether  he  paid  for  the  print- 
ing of  these  circulars  or  not;  but  if  so,  that  is  the  only  con- 
tribution ever  made  by  him  or  any  of  the  companies  with  which 

184 


EDWARD   MINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

he  was  connected  to  any  campaign  fund  to  aid  Mr.  Lorimer  at 
any  time. 

A  major  portion  of  the  winter  and  spring  of  1909,  during 
which  the  Legislature  of  Illinois  was  in  deadlock  over  the 
election  of  a  Senator,  Mr.  Hines  spent  in  Washington,  repre- 
senting the  interests  of  the  National  Lumber  Manufacturers' 
Association,  in  connection  with  the  tariff  legislation  then  under 
consideration.  He  did  not  visit  Springfield  during  the  sen- 
atorial contest,  and  had  not  been  in  that  city  for  at  least  five 
years  previous  prior  to  his  appearance  as  a  witness  before  the 
Helm  committee  in  the  spring  of  1911. 

Mr.  Hines  apparently  had  no  interest  in  the  senatorial  con- 
test, and  according  to  the  evidence  did  nothing  in  connection 
therewith  until  the  ist  of  February,  1909,  when,  at  the  request 
of  Mr.  Hibbard,  of  the  firm  of  Hibbard,  Spencer  &  Bartlett, 
hardware  dealers  in  Chicago,  a  codirector  with  Mr.  Hines  on 
the  Continental  National  Bank  board,  he  telegraphed  Mr.  Lori- 
mer, suggesting  the  candidacy  of  Mr.  A.  C.  Bartlett,  and  fol- 
lowed this  telegram  by  a  letter,  in  which  he  said : 

Mr.  Hibbard  came  to  me  this  morning  about  the  candi- 
dacy of  Mr.  A.  C.  Bartlett.  *  *  *  I  feel  it  might  be 
good  policy  to  nominate  a  man  of  this  kind,  if  you  have 
not  committed  yourself  elsewhere.  *  *  *  Probably 
you  have  already  committed  yourself  along  other  lines. 

In  response  to  this,  some  time  prior  to  the  ist  of  April,  Mr. 
Lorimer  told  Mr.  Hines  that  the  different  factions  could  not, 
apparently,  unite  on  Mr.  Bartlett. 

During  the  next  two  months,  from  February  i  to  April  i, 
1909,  Mr.  Hines,  as  representative  of  the  National  Lumber 
Manufacturers'  Association,  looking  after  tariff  legislation,  in 
Washington,  was  much  occupied  and  paid  no  attention  to  the 
Illinois  situation.  In  this  work  he  was  brought  frequently 
into  contact  with  Senators  Aldrich  and  Penrose,  members  of 
the  Senate  Committee  on  Finance,  which  was  then  conducting 
hearings  in  connection  with  the  tariff  schedules. 

The  legislative  deadlock  in  Illinois  naturally  became  a  topic 

185 


EDWARD   MINES   TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

of  conversation  between  them  and  was  discussed  first  as  a  mat- 
ter of  political  gossip;  then  as  the  situated  developed,  the 
probability  of  the  deadlock  being  broken  was  often  discussed. 
Early  in  the  month  of  April  Senator  Penrose  sent  for  Mr. 
Hines  and  asked  him  if  he  knew  the  situation  or  could  find  out 
whether  the  legislature  was  liable  to  adjourn  without  electing 
a  Senator ;  Mr.  Hines  replied  that  he  did  not  know,  but  would 
try  to  find  out. 

To  this  end  Mr.  Hines  talked  first  with  Congressmen 
Boutell  and  Madden,  of  Chicago,  who  told  him  they  did  not 
know  the  real  situation,  but  that  probably  Congressman  Lori- 
mer  could  give  him  the  information,  whereupon  he  telephoned 
to  Mr.  Lorimer,  who  was  in  Chicago,  and  arranged  to  see  him 
at  his  office  upon  his  return  to  Washington;  at  the  interview 
then  had  Mr.  Hines  told  Congressman  Lorimer  that  he  was  not 
personally  interested  in  the  matter,  but  that  Senator  Penrose 
appeared  to  be  much  interested,  and  had  asked  him  to  make 
inquiries.  Mr.  Lorimer  stated  that  the  situation  was  indefinite ; 
that  he  could  not  then  say  what  it  really  was ;  but  that  he  was 
going  to  Springfield  the  following  night;  would  return  to 
Washington  in  about  a  week,  and  might  then  be  able  to  speak 
with  a  better  knowledge.  Mr.  Hines  reported  this  conversation 
to  Senator  Penrose. 

A  week  or  two  later  Mr.  Hines  again  talked  with  Mr.  Lori- 
mer, who  told  him  that  the  situation  remained  practically  un- 
changed. Mr.  Hines  then  inquired  particularly  as  to  the  men 
under  consideration,  and  Mr.  Lorimer  mentioned  Congress- 
men McKinley  and  Lowden,  Judge  Grosscup,  and  Mr.  Cal- 
houn.  Mr.  Hines  reported  this  conversation,  as  well  as  what 
he  heard  from  other  sources  regarding  conditions  in  Illinois, 
to  Senator  Penrose,  as  he  met  him  in  connection  with  the  tariff 
matters. 

About  the  last  of  April  Senator  Penrose  told  Mr.  Hines  that 
Senator  Aldrich  would  like  to  see  him  and  went  with  him  to 
Senator  Aldrich's  office,  and  in  a  conversation  between  them 
the  general  situation  in  Illinois,  including  the  election  of  a  Sen- 
ator, was  discussed,  during  which  Mr.  Hines  stated  that,  in 

186 


EDWARD  MINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

his  judgment,  Senator  Hopkins  could  not  be  reelected,  and  he 
asked  Senator  Aldrich  what  the  attitude  of  the  President  would 
be  with  reference  to  the  matter.  Senator  Aldrich  replied  that 
the  President  was  desirous  that  a  Republican  Senator  should 
be  elected  in  Illinois,  and  while  he  was  naturally  friendly  to 
Senator  Hopkins  on  account  of  the  fact  that  the  latter  had 
received  the  primary  nomination,  and  perhaps  for  other  rea- 
sons, he  did  not  intend  to  take  any  active  part  in  influencing 
the  action  of  the  legislature;  that  his  wish  was  that  a  Re- 
publican should  be  elected,  but  that  he  would  take  no  steps  in 
furtherance  of  Senator  Hopkins's  candidacy  or  that  of  any 
other  person. 

A  little  latter  Mr.  Hines  had  another  interview  with  Mr. 
Lorimer,  in  which  he  asked  him  the  direct  question  whether 
or  not  he  was  a  candidate  for  the  senatorship ;  and  the  latter 
replied  that  he  was  not,  giving  as  the  one  important  reason  his 
great  interest  in  the  deep-waterway  proposition  which  he  felt 
he  could  best  promote  by  remaining  in  the  House.  At  that 
time  Mr.  Lorimer  asked  Mr.  Hines  if  he  had  anyone  to  rec- 
ommend for  the  position,  and  Mr.  Hines  suggested  Congress- 
man Boutell,  which  met  the  approval  of  Mr.  Lorimer ;  but  he 
could  not  tell  how  Mr.  Boutell's  name  would  be  received.  Mr. 
Hines  told  Senator  Penrose  of  this,  who,  in  turn,  had  a  talk 
with  Mr.  Boutell.  About  the  same  time  Mr.  Hines  had  an 
interview  with  Senator  Aldrich  regarding  the  attitude  of  the 
President  toward  the  candidacy  of  Mr.  Boutell,  stating  that 
an  effort  was  being  made  to  agree  upon  him  as  the  successor 
of  Senator  Hopkins. 

He  asked  Senator  Aldrich  if  he  would  see  the  President, 
ascertain  his  attitude  and  advise  him,  and  Senator  Aldrich 
afterwards  in  another  conversation  reported  to  him  that  the 
President  would  be  agreeable  to  Mr.  Boutell's  candidacy ;  that 
his  anxiety  was  to  have  a  Republican  elected,  and  that  he  was 
satisfied  with  Mr.  Boutell's  Republicanism  and  would  have 
no  objection  to  his  election.  Mr.  Lorimer's  candidacy  was  not 
suggested  or  discussed  at  that  time.  Mr.  Hines  told  Mr. 
Boutell  what  he  had  done,  and  suggested  to  him  that  he  see 

187 


EDWARD   MINES  TO   THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

the  President.  Mr.  Boutell  did  so,  and  also  wrote  letters  to 
Chicago  to  ascertain  how  his  candidacy  would  be  regarded  in 
Illinois;  later  he  went  to  Chicago  and  after  a  careful  investi- 
gation found  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  get  the  different 
factions  to  unite  on  him ;  and  Mr.  Hines  told  Senator  Penrose 
of  the  failure  of  that  undertaking. 

As  time  passed  the  names  of  Messrs.  Boutell,  Lowden,  and 
others  mentioned  in  connection  with  this  election,  were  in  the 
progress  of  events  eliminated,  and  Mr.  Hines  ultimately  sug- 
gested to  Senator  Penrose  that  Mr.  Lorimer  might  be  the  man 
upon  whom  the  different  factions  could  unite,  but  because  Mr. 
Lorimer  had  previously  informed  him  that  he  preferred  to  re- 
main in  the  House  it  was  doubtful  if  he  could  be  induced  to 
enter  the  contest.  Senator  Penrose  also  learned  from  other 
sources  that  Mr.  Lorimer  was  the  only  available  candidate. 

Just  previous  to  the  election  of  Mr.  Lorimer  by  the  Legis- 
lature of  the  State  of  Illinois  one  or  two  interviews  took  place 
between  Senator  Aldrich  and  Mr.  Hines  regarding  the  can- 
didacy of  Mr.  Lorimer  and  the  attitude  of  the  President  with 
respect  thereto.  Regarding  one  of  these,  Senator  Aldrich  in 
his  testimony  says : 

Mr.  Hines  then  told  me  that  it  was  impossible  to  agree 
upon  Mr.  Boutell,  and  he  thought  there  was  a  prospect — 
he  said  a  very  good  prospect — of  agreeing  upon  Mr.  Lori- 
mer; and  he  was  anxious  that  I  should  find  out  the  atti- 
tude of  the  President,  the  administration,  toward  Mr. 
Lorimer's  election,  and  tell  him  Avhat  it  would  be. 

This  the  committee  finds  was  at  Senator  Aldrich's  commit- 
tee room,  late  in  the  evening ;  that  together  they  rode  to  Sen- 
ator Aldrich's  house,  where  Mr.  Hines  was  left  to  await  the 
return  of  Senator  Aldrich  from  the  White  House,  where  he 
went  to  have  a  consultation  with  the  President  in  relation  to 
this  matter.  Senator  Aldrich  returned  home  from  this  inter- 
view about  midnight,  and  in  his  testimony  says : 

I  told  him  that  Mr.  Lorimer's  candidacy  would  not  be 
objectionable  to  the  President.  Then  Mr.  Hines  asked 
me  if  I  was  willing  to  say  that  to  anyone  that  he  might 

188 


EDWARD   HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

suggest  to  inquire  of  me  upon  the  subject;  and  I  said 
that  I  was — that  if  I  were  asked  in  reference  to  the  matter 
I  should  say  that  Mr.  Lorimer's  candidacy  would  not  be 
objectionable  to  the  President. 

Regarding  the  time  of  this  interview,  Senator  Aldrich 
testifies : 

I  know  that  it  was  prior  to  the  election,  and  my  im- 
pression is  that  Mr.  Hines  told  me  that  he  was  to  leave 
for  Chicago  either  that  day  or  the  next  day,  or  some  time 
very  near  that. 

And  on  this  point  Senator  Aldrich's  testimony  is  as  follows : 

Senator  KERN.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with 
Mr.  Hines  at  all  about  Gov.  Deneen,  or  the  part  Gov. 
Deneen  was  to  take  in  the  contest  ? 

Senator  ALDRICH.     I  think  at  this  conversation  Gov. 

Deneen's  name  was  mentioned  by  Mr.  Hines ;  not  by  me. 
****** 

The  CHAIRMAN.    What  did  he  say  about  Deneen  ? 

Senator  ALDRICH.  My  recollection  is  that  Deneen  was 
an  important  party  to  this  arrangement,  or  agreement, 
upon  a  candidate,  and  that  Deneen's  attitude  would  be 
more  or  less  influenced  by  knowing  whether  it  would  be 
agreeable  to  the  President.  That  was  my  general  im- 
pression with  regard  to  that  matter. 

Both  Senators  Aldrich  and  Penrose  corroborate  Mr.  Hines 
in  all  essential  features  of  his  account  of  what  took  place  lead- 
ing up  to  and  including  his  activities  in  behalf  of  Senator 
Lorimer. 

Endeavoring  to  carry  out  what  he  understood  to  be  the  de- 
sire upon  the  part  of  Senator  Aldrich  and  the  administration, 
Mr.  Hines  went  from  the  home  of  Senator  Aldrich  to  the  New 
Willard  Hotel,  from  whence,  sometime  after  midnight,  he 
called  up  Congressman  Lorimer  on  long-distance  telephone  at 
Springfield  and  gave  him  Senator  Aldrich's  message.  Mr. 
Lorimer  expressed  some  surprise  at  mention  of  the  President's 
name,  but  Mr.  Hines  repeated  the  statement,  telling  him  there 
was  no  question  about  it,  as  he  had  but  then  finished  talking 
with  Senator  Aldrich,  after  the  latter's  return  from  a  confer- 

189 


EDWARD  MINES  TO  THE  U.   L.   CLUB 

ence  with  the  President  at  the  White  House,  and  that  they 
would  do  all  they  could  to  assist  in  his  election.  Mr.  Lorimer 
asked  if  Senator  Aldrich  would  send  him  a  telegram  to  that 
effect,  and  Mr.  Hines  assured  him  that  he  himself  was  au- 
thorized to  send  such  a  message,  and  Mr.  Lorimer  told  him  to 
send  it.  Mr.  Hines  then  asked  Congressman  Lorimer  if  he 
would  become  a  candidate,  to  which  the  latter  replied : 

At  this  time  I  can  not  say;  after  I  get  the  telegram  I 
will  give  the  matter  consideration. 

Mr.  Hines  accordingly  sent  the  telegram.  Senator  Lorimer 
testifies  that  this  was  the  first  word  he  received  from  Mr.  Hines 
concerning  his  candidacy,  and  Mr.  Hines  says  it  was  the  first 
time  the  subject  was  mentioned  between  them  after  the  talk 
in  April  when  Congressman  Lorimer  told  him  he  would  not  be 
a  candidate  for  the  senatorship.  Senator  Lorimer  locates  the 
date  of  this  telegram  between  the  2Oth  and  25th  of  May,  and 
Mr.  Hines  puts  the  date  May  23,  1909. 

Mr.  Hines  testifies  that  matters  ran  on  for  a  few  days,  and 
that  Senator  Aldrich  again  sent  for  him  and  urged  him  to  go 
to  Springfield  and  see  the  governor  personally  and  impress 
upon  his  mind  the  importance  to  the  administration  of  the  elec- 
tion of  a  Republican,  and  if  Mr.  Lorimer  could  be  elected  to 
have  him  assist  in  accomplishing  it.  This  was  on  the  morn- 
ing of  May  25,  1909,  and  Mr.  Hines  left  for  Springfield  via 
Chicago  that  afternoon. 

While  the  committee  find  some  confusion  in  the  testimony 
on  the  question  whether  there  were  two  interviews  between 
Senator  Aldrich  and  Mr.  Hines  regarding  the  election  of  Mr. 
Lorimer  and  the  mission  of  Mr.  Hines  in  connection  therewith, 
they  are  of  the  opinion  that  Mr.  Hines's  memory  is  the  more 
accurate,  and  that  such  was  the  case ;  but  if,  as  Senator  Aid- 
rich  thinks,  there  was  but  one  interview,  it  must  have  been  on 
the  night  of  May  24,  1909,  for  before  leaving  Washington  the 
following  day,  May  25,  Mr.  Hines  sent  the  following  tele- 
grams to  Mr.  Lorimer,  who  was  at  Springfield : 

190 


EDWARD   MINES   TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

MAY  25,  1909. 
William  Larimer,  St.  Nicholas  Hotel,  Springfield,  111.: 

Aldrich  authorizes  governor  calling  him  up  telephone. 
Confirm  my  message;  conference  last  night;  governor 
requested  cooperate  bring  about  result;  can  bring  mes- 
sage tomorrow. 


WASHINGTON,  D.  C,  MAY  25. 
William  Larimer,  St.  Nicholas  Hotel,  Springfield,  III.: 

Leaving  for  Chicago  today ;  can  go  direct  to  Springfield. 
Bring  message  confirming  conference  held  last  night, 
showing  highest  authorities  want  you  elected  before  leg- 
islature adjourns.  Important  Republican  party  Illinois 
politics  have  strong,  experienced  man,  friendly  to  powers 
here,  elected  immediately;  needed  here  now.  Telegraph 
answer  quick,  duplicate,  care  limited  train,  Harrisburg 
depot. 

In  both  of  which  messages,  as  will  be  observed,  he  refers  to 
a  conference  held  the  night  before. 

These  conferences  between  Mr.  Hines  and  Senators  Aid- 
rich  and  Penrose  impressed  Mr.  Hines  with  the  importance  of 
the  matters  under  discussion  as  well  as  the  importance  of  his 
activities  in  connection  with  them.  He  understood  that  in  the 
investigations  and  reports  which  he  made  to  them  he  was 
carrying  out  their  wishes,  that  in  the  end  they  had  reached  the 
conclusion  that  Mr.  Lorimer  was  the  only  person  upon  whom 
the  different  factions  of  the  legislature  could  unite,  and  they 
were  anxious  that  he  should  not  only  consent  to  become  a  can- 
didate but  that  he  should  use  his  best  efforts  to  be  elected.  In 
these  conferences  Gov.  Deneen's  name  had  been  mentioned  as 
an  important  factor  in  the  election  of  a  Senator,  and  Mr.  Hines 
understood,  after  his  last  interview  with  Senator  Aldrich  at 
the  latter's  house,  that  he  was  authorized  to  convey  to  Mr. 
Lorimer  the  wishes  of  the  Senators  named,  the  attitude  of  the 
President  as  to  his  candidacy,  and  to  urge  Gov.  Deneen  to  aid 
in  his  election.  The  telegrams  indicate  his  understanding  of 
the  situation  and  of  his  mission,  and  he  understood  that  in 
carrying  this  message  he  was  representing  the  gentlemen  with 

191 


EDWARD   HINES  TO   THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

whom  he  had  been  in  conference,  and  that  he  was  authorized  to 
refer  anyone  wishing  for  further  information  as  to  their  atti- 
tude or  that  of  the  President  to  Senator  Aldrich. 

Mr.  Hines  was  very  much  impressed  with  the  importance 
of  his  selection  as  the  medium  through  whom  this  message  was 
to  be  carried  to  Illinois,  and  he  entered  with  zeal  upon  the 
undertaking. 

The  evidence  indicates  that  Senators  Aldrich  and  Penrose 
were  the  only  persons  with  whom  Mr.  Hines  was  working  or 
cooperating  in  the  effort  to  break  the  deadlock  in  the  Illinois 
Legislature  by  the  election  of  a  Republican  Senator;  that  the 
only  real  interest  he  had  in  the  matter  was  aroused  by  his  fre- 
quent interviews  with  those  gentlemen ;  the  evidence  also  shows 
that  neither  he  nor  they  had  any  candidate  whom  they  specially 
cared  to  have  elected — any  Republican  would  have  been  satis- 
factory, and  their  purpose  was  to  discover  some  person  upon 
whom  the  different  factions  in  the  legislature  would  unite,  and 
to  that  end  they  called  upon  Mr.  Hines  for  assistance.  Con- 
cerning this,  Senator  Penrose  in  his  testimony  says : 

If  Mr.  Hines  had  been  staying  at  home  and  attending  to 
his  business  in  Chicago,  and  the  tariff  had  not  been  up, 
and  he  had  never  seen  me  or  a  lot  of  people  who  were 
interested  in  politics  night  and  day,  I  do  not  imagine  he 
would  ever  have  gotten  interested  in  the  senatorial  fight. 

Mr.  Hines  left  Washington  on  May  25,  1909,  and  reached 
Chicago  between  8  and  9  o'clock  on  the  morning  of  May  26, 
1909.  It  had  been  his  intention  to  continue  the  journey  to 
Springfield,  in  order  as  he  testified — 

to  carry  out  the  request  made  by  Senator  Aldrich  and  see 
the  governor  and  see  other  leading  Republicans,  members 
of  the  legislature,  to  impress  upon  their  minds  the  im- 
portance of  trying  to  unite  on  some  Republican  as  Senator 
from  Illinois.  (Hines,  832.) 

But  upon  reaching  Chicago  he  was  met  at  the  station  by  Mr. 
Wiehe  with  a  message  from  Mr.  Lorimer  to  call  the  latter  on 
the  telephone  from  Chicago  instead  of  continuing  his  journey 

192 


EDWARD   HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

to  Springfield  as  intended.  Mr.  Hines  therefore  proceeded  at 
once  to  the  Continental  Commercial  National  Bank,  and  from 
there  put  in  a  long-distance  telephone  call  for  Mr.  Lorimer 
at  Springfield.  While  waiting  for  this  connection,  he  sent  from 
the  bank  the  following  telegram : 

CHICAGO,  May  26,  1909. 
William  Lorimer,  Esq.,  Springfield,  III.: 

Just  arrived ;  trying  to  get  you  telephone ;  Aldrich,  Pen- 
rose,  and  higher  authority,  as  telephoned  you  from  Wash- 
ington, want  you  elected ;  authorized  have  governor  others 
call  Washington  telephone;  confirm  this;  can  be  there 
tonight.  EDWARD  HINES. 

Very  soon  thereafter  Mr.  Lorimer  called  him  on  the  tele- 
phone and  said : 

I  would  like  to  have  you  immediately  call  up  Gov. 
Deneen  on  the  long-distance  telephone,  and  emphasize  to 
him  as  strong  as  possible  what  you  told  me  from  Wash- 
ington. *  *  *  When  you  get  through  talking  with 
Gov.  Deneen,  call  me  up  on  the  telephone  and  let  me 
know  what  he  says. 

Referring  to  this  telephonic  conversation  with  Mr.  Hines, 
Senator  Lorimer  in  his  testimony  says : 

I  told  him  that  the  reason  I  did  not  want  him  to  go  to 
Springfield  was  that  the  governor  was  not  friendly  to  my 
candidacy,  and  that  if  he  came  down  to  deliver  the  mes- 
sage it  would  be  too  late  before  he  arrived,  but  probably 
if  he  delivered  the  message  to  him  over  the  long-distance 
telephone  it  might  have  some  influence  with  him.  I  had 
not  any  idea  in  the  world  that  it  would,  but  I  feel  when 
your  are  in  a  campaign  you  ought  to  do  the  last  thing, 
and  in  his  case  it  was  the  last  thing. 

Mr.  Hines  testified  that  he  also  called  up  Gov.  Deneen  from 
the  bank  and  said,  as  he  remembers  the  conversation : 

This  is  Mr.  Edward  Hines,  at  Chicago.  I  have  just 
come  in  this  morning  on  the  limited  train  from  Washing- 
ton, and  was  on  my  way  to  Springfield  to  bring  the  mes- 
sage to  you  from  Senator  Aldrich  and  the  President, 
urging  upon  you  to  do  all  you  possibly  can  to  assist  in 
the  election  of  a  Senator  at  the  earliest  moment  possible. 

193 


EDWARD   H1NES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

They    understand    that    Congressman    Lorimer    can    b« 
elected  if  you  will  assist 

Mr.  Hines  testified  that  the  governor  did  not  seem  to  recog- 
nize his  voice  at  first,  and  there  was  some  suggestion  of  calling 
Mr.  Reynolds,  president  of  the  bank,  to  identify  him,  but  that 
finally  the  governor  appeared  to  recognize  his  voice  and  said 
that  would  be  unnecessary,  and,  continuing  his  conversation, 
Mr.  Hines  said  then  to  him,  "How  soon  can  you  see  Congress- 
man Lorimer?";  that  the  governor  replied,  "I  will  see  him 
within  10  minutes" ;  and  then  Mr.  Hines  asked  him  the  follow- 
ing question,  "Can  we  rely  on  your  assistance,"  and  under- 
stood the  governor  to  say,  "Yes." 

In  regard  to  this  Gov.  Deneen  testified : 

Mr.  Hines  called  me  up  and  asked  me  whether  I  had 
received  a  message  from  the  President — President  Taft — 
in  reference  to  Senator  Lorimer.  He  stated  that  Presi- 
dent Taft  had  sent  a  message  to  me  to  support  Senator 
Lorimer,  and  asked  me  if  I  had  received  the  message.  I 
told  him  no.  He  said:  "Well,  President  Taft  has  sent 
the  message,  and  I  intended  to  come  down  myself.  I  have 
just  arrived,  this  morning,  in  Chicago ;"  and  my  best  rec- 
ollection is  that  he  stated  that  his  train  was  late,  had  a 
five  minutes'  connection,  and  the  Pennsylvania  train  had 
missed  connections.  But,  in  any  event,  he  said  that  he 
had  intended  to  come,  and  did  not  come,  could  not  come ; 
and  he  said  President  Taft  had  sent  that  message  to  me, 
and  I  would  get  it.  I  said:  "Did  President  Taft  send 
that  message  to  me?  Did  he  tell  you ?"  He  said:  "No." 
I  said:  "That  is  a  rather  remarkable  message  to  send." 
He  said:  "Well,  he  is  to  send  it  through  Senator  Al- 
drich."  He  said:  "Of  course,  the  President  would  not 
send  a  message  to  you  on  such  a  matter  where  it  would 
become  a  public  matter ;  but  Senator  Aldrich  is  to  convey 
the  message  to  you."  I  said:  "Through  whom?"  He 
said:  "Mr.  George  Reynolds,  of  the  Continental  Com- 
mercial Bank,  will  call  up  and  deliver  the  message."  I 
said:  "Very  well." 

Gov.  Deneen  says  he  did  not  tell  Mr.  Hines  that  he  would 
see  Mr.  Lorimer  within  a  few  minutes,  or  within  10  minutes, 

194 


EDWARD  H1NES  TO  THE   U.   L   CLUB 

and  says  there  was  nothing  in  regard  to  calling  Mr.  Reynolds 
to  identify  his  voice;  that  he  was  not  sufficiently  acquainted 
with  him  to  recognize  Mr.  Hines's  voice,  and  doubted  per- 
sonally, whether  Mr.  Hines  was  telephoning. 

While  they  differ  regarding  many  things  which  it  is  claimed 
were  said  during  this  conversation,  which  is  easily  accounted 
for  by  the  difficulty  attending  a  long  distance  telephone  con- 
versation, they  both  agree  that  no  reference  whatever  was 
made  to  money  matters,  and  that  Mr.  Hines  said  nothing  about 
going  to  Springfield  and  taking  with  him  all  the  money  that 
was  necessary  to  bring  about  the  election  of  Mr.  Lorimer,  as 
testified  by  the  witness  Cook.  Gov.  Deneen  testified  that  on 
May  26,  1909,  he  did  not  see  or  communicate  in  any  way  with 
Mr.  Lorimer  until  after  his  election,  when  the  latter  called 
upon  him  about  2  o'clock. 

On  the  contrary,  Senator  Lorimer  testified  that  Gov.  Deneen 
called  him  on  the  telephone  on  the  morning  of  May  26,  1909, 
and  said: 

That  he  had  talked  with  Mr.  Hines  over  the  telephone, 
and  that  Mr.  Hines  had  delivered  a  message  to  him  to 
the  effect  that  Senators  Penrose  and  Aldrich  and  the 
President  were  anxious  that  I  should  be  elected. 

And  in  answer  to  the  question:  "What  response  did  you 
make,"  Senator  Lorimer  testified : 

I  thanked  him  for  it.  I  knew  the  interview  Mr.  Hines 
had  had  with  the  governor  had  had  no  influence  with  him. 

And  Senator  Lorimer  says  in  his  testimony  that  the  only 
reason  he  did  not  desire  Mr.  Hines  to  go  to  Springfield  was 
because  he  could  not  reach  there  in  time,  he  having  concluded 
to  allow  his  name  to  be  presented  that  day,  and  he  understood 
the  only  assistance  Mr.  Hines  could  render  was  to  deliver  the 
message ;  that  the  governor  made  no  comment  with  reference 
to  the  message,  and  in  this  respect  testified.  Mr.  Lorimer 
testified : 

I  thought  the  governor  just  delivered  a  message.  I  got 
an  impression  that  the  governor  either  felt  that  it  was  his 

195 


EDWARD   HINES   TO   THE   U.    L.    CLUB 

duty  to  call  me  up  and  let  me  know,  or  that  he  had  been 
requested  to  call  me  up  and  let  me  know  what  had  oc- 
curred. 

Senator  Lorimer  further  testified  that  up  to  the  night  of 
May  25,  1909,  he  had  not  been  advised  that  the  President  or 
Senators  Aldrich  or  Penrose  had  authorized  anyone  to  verify 
their  support,  or  their  desire  in  regard  to  having  a  Republican 
elected.  Senator  Lorimer  further  testified  that  he  got  the  im- 
pression from  the  way  Gov.  Deneen  talked  to  him  over  the 
telephone  on  the  morning  of  May  26,  1909,  that  he  was — 

just  doing  what  he  regarded  as  a  duty  or  extending  a 
courtesy  to  the  person  he  had  previously  spoken  to  over 
the  telephone. 

He  did  not  commit  himself ;  and  I  knew  from  the  way 
he  talked  that  the  message  had  no  influence  over  the  gov- 
ernor. 

Senator  Lorimer  testified  to  a  subsequent  conversation  with 
Mr.  Hines  as  follows : 

I  talked  with  him  over  the  telephone — quite  a  while 
after  that,  and  told  him  the  governor  had  told  me  of  the 
message  that  he  delivered  to  him.  When  I  say  "quite  a 
little  while  after  that,"  I  mean  it  may  have  been  ten, 
fifteen  or  twenty  minutes. 

After  this  telephonic  conversation  with  Gov.  Deneen  from 
the  Continental  Commercial  National  Bank,  Mr.  Hines  went 
to  the  Grand  Pacific  Hotel  to  meet  Messrs.  Cook  and  O'Brien 
upon  a  purely  business  matter,  which  meeting  had  been  ar- 
ranged by  his  subordinates  and  while  in  Mr.  Cook's  room  had 
a  second  conversation  with  Mr.  Lorimer  over  the  telephone,  in 
which  he  said  in  substance : 

I  have  just  talked  with  the  governor,  and  he  said  he 
would  see  you  immediately.  The  Congressman  replied, 
"He  has  already  seen  me."  I  then  said,  "Now,  if  I  can 
do  any  good  I  will  come  down  on  the  afternoon  train." 
He  replied  not  to  come  down  until  he  would  telephone 
me.  He  said,  "If  my  name  goes  before  the  legislature 
today,  you  could  not  assist  any  in  time  to  come  here.  If 

196 


EDWARD   H1NES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

you  could  assist  tomorrow,  I  will  let  you  know  late  in  the 
afternoon  by  telephone." 

At  this  point  the  activities  of  Edward  Hines  in  connection 
with  the  election  of  William  Larimer  ceased.  He  did  not  go  to 
Springfield,  and  the  only  person  whose  action  he  attempted  to 
influence  was  Gov.  Deneen,  and  in  doing  that  he  simply  under- 
took to  deliver  what  he  understood  to  be  the  message  from 
Senators  Aldrich  and  Penrose. 

The  significant  facts  brought  out  by  all  the  testimony  upon 
the  question  of  Mr.  Hines's  connection  with  Mr.  Lorimer's 
election  are: 

(a)  That  he  had  no  special  personal  interest  in  the  matter^ 
and  did  not  visit  Springfield  at  any  time  during  the  session  of 
the  Legislature. 

(b)  That  he  was  not  urging  the  candidacy  of  any  particular 
person. 

(c)  That  during  the  two  months  in  which  the  situation  in 
Illinois  was  discussed  between  him  and  Senators  Aldrich  and 
Penrose  the  names  of  several  men  of  reputation  and  character 
were  considered  and  dropped,  and  the  name  of  Mr.  Lorimer 
was  not  mentioned  between  them  as  a  candidate  until  three  or 
four  days  before  his  election,  and  not  until  after  his  probable 
candidacy  had  been  under  discussion  in  Springfield  and  it  was 
believed  there  that  he  would  become  a  candidate.    It  was  prac- 
tically certain  Hopkins  could  not  be  elected. 

(d)  That  the  only  object  entertained  by  Messrs.  Aldrich  and 
Penrose  was  to  have  the  deadlock  broken  and  a  Republican 
elected. 

(e)  That  to  accomplish  this  Mr.  Lorimer  was  not  objection- 
able as  a  candidate  either  to  the  President  or  to  them,  and  vari- 
ous names  had  been  tested  and  it  was  found  that  Mr.  Lorimer 
could  command  more  votes  than  any  one  considered. 

(f)  That  Mr.  Hines  was  authorised  and  requested  to  report 
these  facts  to  Mr.  Lorimer,  Gov,  Deneen,  and  other  public  men, 
and  to  refer  to  both  Senators  Aldrich  and  Penrose  as  his 
authority. 

197 


EDWARD  HIKES  TO  THE  U.  L.  CLUB 

(g)  That  it  -flattered  Mr.  Hines  to  be  consulted  by  Senators 
Aldrich  and  Penrose,  and  his  sense  of  the  importance  of  the 
matter  was  greatly  enhanced  when  he  knew  that  they  had  been 
in  conference  with  the  President,  and  that  Mr.  Larimer's  can- 
didacy would  not  be  objectionable  to  him,  and  that  to  be  in- 
trusted with  the  responsibility  of  making  known  their  wishes 
and  explaining  the  attitude  of  the  President  to  Gov.  Deneen 
and  to  Mr.  Lorimer  was  a  great  personal  favor. 

(h)  That  he  believed  when  the  election  followed  so  closely 
these  events  that  he  had  been  instrumental  in  bringing  it  about 
and  was  correspondingly  elated. 

The  only  testimony  before  the  committee  that  in  any  way 
connects  the  name  of  Edward  Tilden  with  the  alleged  fund 
raised  to  aid  in  the  election  of  William  Lorimer  is  incorporated 
in  the  statement  reluctantly  made  by  Mr.  Funk  when  he  says : 
"Mr.  Hines  said,  'Just  sent  the  money  to  Ed.  Tilden.' "  Not  a 
witness  has  testified  to  any  fact  tending  to  establish  the  ex- 
istence of  such  a  fund  or  to  Mr.  Tilden's  connection  with  any 
such  fund.  But  the  committee  saw  fit  to  summon  Mr.  Tilden 
as  a  witness  and  in  his  testimony  he  denied  with  great  emphasis 
any  knowledge  of  the  existence  of  such  a  fund,  or  having  any 
connection  with  it,  and  stated  that  the  first  time  he  heard  his 
name  mentioned  in  that  respect  was  when  he  read  in  the  news- 
papers an  account  of  Mr.  Funk's  testimony  before  the  Helm 
committee  at  Springfield. 

To  further  determine  the  question  whether  Mr.  Hines  had 
been  a  contributor  to  or  had  any  part  in  it,  and  whether  Mr. 
Tilden  had  received  or  disbursed  the  same,  the  committee  em- 
ployed the  firm  of  Barrow,  Wade,  Guthrie  &  Co.,  certified  pub- 
lic accountants  of  New  York.  Mr.  Ritchie  of  that  firm  made 
an  examination  of  the  accounts  of  the  Edward  Hines  Lumber 
Co.  and  all  its  subsidiary  branches  and  of  the  companies  con- 
trolled by  it,  including  the  North  Wisconsin  Lumber  &  Manu- 
facturing Co. ;  Hayward  Mercantile  Co. ;  First  National  Bank, 
Hayward,  Wis.;  Mason  State  Bank,  Mason;  White  River 
Lumber  Co. ;  Iron  River  Lumber  Co. ;  Virginia  &  Rainy  Lake 
Co.,  covering  the  period  from  April  i,  1909,  to  December  31, 

198 


EDWARD   HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

1909,  as  well  as  the  personal  books  of  Edward  Hines  for  the 
year  ending  December  31,  1909,  and  reported  to  the  committee 
as  follows: 

(a)  That  there  was  no  evidence  of  the  Edward  Hines 
Lumber  Co.  or  any  of  its  subsidiary  or  controlled  compa- 
nies having  received  or  disbursed  any  moneys  in  connec- 
tion with  the  election  of  Mr.  William  Lorimer,  on  May 
26,  1909,  to  the  United  States  Senate  from  the  State  of 
Illinois. 

(b)  That  there  was  no  evidence  of  Mr.  Edward  Hines 
as  an  individual  having  received  or  disbursed  any  moneys 
in  connection  with  the  aforesaid  election. 

In  order  to  ascertain  whether  or  not  Mr.  Hines  might 
have  negotiated  a  loan  from  one  or  other  of  the  banks  in 
Chicago  with  which  he  was  connected,  or  with  which  he 
had  business  relations,  I  visited  the  following  banks  and 
trust  companies:  Continental  National  Bank,  Hibernian 
Banking  Association,  Fort  Dearborn  National  Bank, 
Northern  Trust  Co.,  Corn  Exchange  National  Bank,  Met- 
ropolitan Trust  &  Savings  Bank. 

At  each  of  these  banks  I  examined  their  record  of  notes 
discounted  during  the  last  week  in  May,  1909,  and  the 
first  part  of  June,  1909. 

I  am  able  to  report,  therefore,  that  at  none  of  these 
banks,  in  the  period  under  review,  did  Mr.  Hines  discount 
any  note  or  notes,  either  as  drawer  or  as  indorser. 
An  examination  was  also  made  of  the  books  of  Mr.  Edward 
Tilden,  and  after  reciting  the  method  of  the  same  and  the 
theory  upon  which  it  was  conducted,  Mr.  Ritchie  reported  to 
the  committee  that — 

There  was  no  evidence  that  Mr.  Tilden  had  been  cus- 
todian of  the  fund  alleged  to  have  been  raised  in  connec- 
tion with  the  election  of  Mr.  William  Lorimer  to  the 
United  States  Senate  from  the  State  of  Illinois. 


The  Funk  testimony  was  also  lacking  in  conclusiveness.  In 
fact,  it  has  been  taken  cum  grano  satis  (with  a  grain  of  salt) 
by  nearly  everyone  who  has  heard  it.  Mr.  Funk  himself  ad- 
mitted that  he  thought  his  story  would  not  be  believed.  His 
associates,  to  whom  it  is  claimed  he  told  the  story  at  the  time, 

199 


EDWARD   HINES  TO  THE   U.   L.   CLUB 

did  not  take  it  seriously  enough  to  report  it  to  any  of  the  public 
authorities  or  to  the  committee  of  the  Senate  that  shortly  aft- 
erwards was  in  session  across  the  street  from  the  office  of  Mr. 
Funk  and  his  associates,  and  these  associates  of  Mr.  Funk  who 
testified  that  they  heard  from  him  the  story  profess  to  be 
very  good  citizens.  Mr.  Kohlsaat  did  not  have  enough  con- 
fidence in  the  story  of  Mr.  Funk  to  insist  upon  the  right  to 
give  it  full  and  unqualified  publicity.  He  did  make  the  story 
known  (without  revealing  Funk's  identity)  to  several  Senators 
some  time  before  the  final  action  of  the  Senate  in  the  former 
proceeding.  No  Senator  thus  advised  treated  the  informa- 
tion as  of  enough  importance  to  ask  for  a  reference  back  to 
the  committee  or  the  reopening  of  the  taking  of  evidence, 
though  all  knew  Mr.  Kohlsaat  could  not  refuse  to  reveal  the 
name  of  his  informant  if  Mr.  Kohlsaat  were  called  as  a  wit- 
ness. When  Mr.  Funk  did  give  his  testimony  its  very  im- 
probability was  its  most  marked  feature.  It  was  wholly  uncor- 
roborated. His  version  was  contradicted  in  its  various  parts 
by  many  witnesses.  No  one  could  say  it  was  sustained  by  the 
preponderance  of  the  evidence. 

The  testimony  of  others  as  to  the  gossip  regarding  a  fund 
used  in  the  senatorial  election  was  speculative  and  worthless 
and  wherever  it  had  any  tangibility  it  was  conclusively  contra- 
dicted and  refuted. 


200 


INDEX  AND  DIGEST 

ALDRICH,  NELSON  W.,  Ex-Senator  of  the  United  States. 

Testimony    of 25 

Authorizes  Hines  to  convey  message  to  Springfield 26 

BOARD  OF  DIRECTORS  OF  UNION  LEAGUE  CLUB. 

Ignores  Senate  of  United   States 8 

Notified  Hines  to  appear  on  June  5,  1911 8 

Notified  Hines  to  appear  on  Nov.  20,  1911 8 

Suspicious  haste  of 17 

Without  legal  power 17 

Manifest  bias  of 18 

Remarkable  attitude  of 163 

Unconcealed  hostility  of  certain  members  of 164 

Impossible  that  it  believed  Funk 168 

Versus  the  Dillingham  Committee 169 

BAKER,  ISAAC,  buyer  for  the  Edward  Hines  Lumber  Company. 

Testifies  concerning  Union  League  Club  interview 36 

CARNEY,  FRED,  Jr.,  lumber  business,  Marquette,  Wis. 

Testimony  concerning  Union  League  Club  interview 35 

COOK,  WIRT  H.,  lumber  business,  Duluth,  Minn. 

The  Wirt  H.  Cook  episode 30 

False  version  of  telephone  conversation 31 

Board  would  not  call  him  as  a  witness 32 

COTTER,  G.  F..  general  manager  Colorado  &  Southern  Railroad. 
Telegraphs  that  he  dined  with  Hines  in  Washington  on  Jan. 

21,   1911    148 

DILLINGHAM  COMMITTEE. 

Appointed  June  7,  191 1 7 

Orders  examination  of  Hines'  books 64 

Completely  vindicated  Edward  Hines 172 

DUPERT,  ADAM,  Baltimore  financier. 

Was  with  Hines  in  Baltimore  on  January  22 139 

EATON,  MARQUIS,  attorney  for  Edward  Hines. 

Makes  sharp  demand  of  Board  for  copy  of  record 5 

Urges  Board  to  await  action  of  Dillingham  Committee 14 

Demands  that  Board  shows  "reasonable  courtesy"  to  Dilling- 
ham Committee   16 

FRAME,  DONALD,  cigar  clerk  Union  League  Club. 

Testimony  of 57 

Examination  before  Dillingham   Committee 58 

GILBERT,  ALLEN,  of  Gilbert  &  Gilbert,  Chicago  law  firm. 

Telegraphs  he  was  with  Hines  in  Washington  on  Jan,  21,  1911,  149 

20t 


INDEX   AND  DIGEST 

FUNK,  CLARENCE  S.,  general  manager  International  Harvester 
Company,  Chicago. 

Burrows  Committee  held  sessions  across  street  from 6 

Board  very  friendly  to 19 

Meets  Hines  at  Union  League  Club  on  May  27,  1909 33 

Testifies  concerning  Union  League  Club  interview 37 

Omits  important  testimony  before  Board 38 

Did  not  know   Edward   Tilden 40 

His    story    uncorroborated 40 

Palpable  absurdity  of  his  story 43 

Denied  by  H.  H.  Kohlsaat 45 

Contradicts    Kohlsaat 46 

Contradicted  by  Cyrus  H.  McCormick 47 

Falsehood  concerning  presence  of  Hines  in  Springfield 48 

Lack  of  character  as  citizen 49 

False  to  principles  of  Union  League  Club 50 

Seeks   favors  of  Hines 50 

Asks  introduction  to  Senator  Lorimer 51 

Tries  to  see  Hines 53 

Declares  he  had  never  read  editorial  of  February  15 69 

Appears  before  Helm  Committee  April  5,  1911 70 

Testified  before  Dillingham  Committee  June  26,  1911 72 

Fixes  date  of  second  alleged  interview 73 

Repudiates  sworn  testimony  before  Union  League  Club 75 

Declines  to  correct  or  add  to  his  testimony 76 

Changes  vital  date  sixteen  months 77 

His  motive  in  fixing  new  date 79 

Trapped  by  Mr.  Eaton 80 

His  various  versions  of  the  second  alleged  interview 80 

His   story  unbelievable 82 

Again  shifts  his  date 102 

Recklessness  of  his  testimony 103 

His   astounding   assertions 104 

Declines  to  specify  the  editorial  of  January  20 105 

Positively  specifies  the  editorial  of  January  20 105 

Explains  how  anonymous  telegrams  were  obtained 124 

Explains  who  "Stone"  or  "Schlobohn"  is 125 

Explains  unfortunate  financial  condition  of  "Stone" 126 

His  seven  dates  for  one  alleged  event 161 

His  candor  as  a  witness 166 

GREEN,  REV.  JAMES  F.,  clergyman. 

Testifies  being  in  Philadelphia  with  Hines  on  January  20  and 

with  him  in  Baltimore  on  January  22,  191  r 138 

GREEN,  MISS  ANN  T.,  sister  of  Rev.  James  T.  Green. 

Testifies  that  Hines  was  in  Philadelphia  night  of  January  20. .  146 

HALL,  CHARLES  L.,  lumber  buyer  of  the  Edward  Hines  Lum- 
ber Company. 

Testifies  concerning  Union  League  Club  interview 36 

HELM  COMMITTEE. 

Appointed  Jan.  17,  191 1 7 

Hines  testified  before  on  March  28,  1911 7 

Suppresses  facts  favorable  to  Hines 62 

202 


INDEX   AND  DIGEST 

HERRICK,  WALTER  D.,  secretary  Union  League  Club. 

Letter  to,  asking  for  copy  of  record 4 

Addresses  letters  to  Hines 12 

HETTLER,  HERMAN  H.,  lumber  business,  Chicago. 

The  so-called  "Hettler  Incident" 55 

Testimony  of 56 

Refreshes  memory  of  Donald  Frame 59 

Admits  conferring  with  Donald  Frame 60 

Insulting  assertion  of 62 

HINES,   EDWARD,  lumber  business,  Chicago. 

Motive  of  Union  League  Board  in  refusing  copy  of  record. ...  3 

Urges  Board  to  await  action  of  Dillingham  Committee n 

Protests  against  Funk's  secret  hearing 12 

Appears  before  Board  on  Jan.  2,  1912 17 

Asked  to  resign 18 

Declaration  of  absolute  innocence 19 

Not  in  Springfield  for  five  years  preceding  election  of  Lorimer    20 

Suggests  names  of  Boutell  and  Bartlett 20 

Testimony   of 20-22 

Authorized  by  Aldrich  to  deliver  message 22 

Telephones   Lorimer   from   Washington 22 

Conferences  with   Senator  Penrose 23 

Telegrams  to  Lorimer  from  Washington 26-27 

Discussed  political  mission  with  Mr.  Reynolds 28 

Final  telegram  to  Lorimer 30 

The  Union  League  Club  interview  with  Funk 33 

Testimony  concerning  Union  League  Club  interview 34 

Funk  approached  him 37 

Funk  seeks  favors  from 50 

Funk  asks  of  him  introduction  to  Senator  Lorimer 51 

Attempt  of  Funk  to  arrange  another  meeting 53 

Telegraphs  that  he  cannot  wait  for  Funk 54 

Met  Hettler  in  Union  League  Club  on  May  26,  1909 56 

Made  no  boast  to  Hettler  or  anybody 62 

Vindicated  by  auditors 64 

Proves  that  he  was  not  in  Chicago  from  Feb.  7  to  March  5, 

I9H    74 

Attempt  to  prove  guilt  abandoned 79 

Testifies  concerning  February   15 84 

Addresses   Board    95 

Again  proves  absence  from  Chicago  on  Feb.  15,  1911 97 

Board  again  admits  his  alibi 98 

Testifies  concerning  February  15,  1911 84 

Introduces    important    telegrams 1 13-1 16 

Testifies  concerning  January  21 120 

Testifies  concerning  January  21   and  22 129 

Introduces  telegram  from  G.  F.  Cotter 132 

Testifies  concerning  January  20 133 

Rebukes  Loesch  for  insulting  Father  Green 165 

Vindicated  by  Dillingham  Committee 169 

INTERNATIONAL  HARVESTER  COMPANY. 

Wishes  to  close  branch  of  Chicago  River 33 

Opposed   to    Senator   Lorimer 33 

203 


INDEX  AND  DIGEST 

KOHLSAAT,  HERMAN  H.,  Editor  Chicago  Record-Herald. 

Swears  that  Funk  mentioned  several  names 45 

Editorial  of  February  15,  191 1 68 

Editorial  of  January  20,  191 1 92 

LEBEAU,  OLIVER  J.,  usher  in  Washington  church. 

Testifies  Hines  was  in  Washington  early  on  morning  of  Jan.  22  147 

LOESCH,  FRANK  J.,  second  attorney  before  the  Union  League 
Club  for  Clarence  S.  Funk. 

Addresses  the  Board 101 

Commits  himself  to  January  21 no 

His  misstatement  to  the  Board in 

Discovers  "a  Mountain  Peak" 117 

Introduces  anonymous  telegram 120 

Insulting  remark  by 124 

Admits  that  Hines  was  in  Pikesville 144 

Insults  the  Reverend  Green 165 

MOODY,  MISS  HELEN,  niece  of  Mrs.  Edward  Hines. 

Reads  from  her  diary 134 

Her  brilliant  cross-examination 136 

NELSON,  C.  R.,  stenographer  for  Edward  Hines. 

Testifies  Hines  was  absent  from  Chicago  from  January  17  to 

February  5,   191 1 112 

Testifies  concerning  January  20  and  21 138 

PENROSE,  BOIES,  U.  S.  Senator  from  Pennsylvania. 

Testimony  of 23 

Declares  Hines  had  "no  political  scheme  to  work  out" 24 

REYNOLDS,  GEORGE  M.,  President  Continental  &)  Commercial 
National  Bank  of  Chicago. 

Testimony  of 28 

Confirms  statements  made  by  Hines 29 

RIORDAN,  REV.  MICHAEL  J.,  clergyman  of  Pikesville,  Md. 

Interesting  testimony  of 141 

SCOTT,  FRANK  H.,   first  attorney  before  Union  League   Club 
for  Clarence  S.  Funk. 

Closes  the  case  for  Funk 89 

Gives  first  hint  of  another  editorial 90 

SIDLEY,   WILLIAM    P.,    Chairman   of   Board   of   Directors   of 
Union  League  Club. 

Accepts  Hines'  alibi 85 

Suggests  that  the  case  should  be  reopened 91 

Ignorance  concerning  new  editorial 93 

Repudiates  his  former  ruling 96 

His  undisguised  bias 122 

STILLWELL,  CLYDE  S.,  Secretary  to  Edgar  A.  Bancroft. 

Produces  diary  of  Cyrus  H.  McCormick 106 

His  contradictory  testimony ; , ,  109 

204 


INDEX   AND  DIGEST 

"STONE,"  said  to  be  "Schlobohn,"  confidential  Washington  repre- 
sentative of  Funk. 
Sends  anonymous  telegram  to  Funk 125 

THOMAS,  EDWARD  H.,  private  secretary  of  Edward  Hines. 

Proves  whereabouts  of  Hines  from  Feb.  7  to  March  4,  1911 96 

Proves  whereabouts  of  Hines  on  and  near  Jan.  20,  1911 in 

"T.  L.  L."    Unknown  sender  of  anonymous  telegram  to  Clarence 
S.  Funk. 

Sends  remarkable  telegram  to  Funk 121 

His  anonymous  telegram  a  mass  of  falsehoods 126 

TILDEN,    EDWARD,     President    National     Packing    Company, 

Chicago. 
Vindicatory  report  of  auditors  concerning  books 66 

WAND,  ARTHUR  J.,  manager  New  Willard  Hotel. 

Produces  books  of  hotel  to  refute  falsehoods  of  anonymous 
telegrams 127 

WHITEHEAD,  T.  W.,  lumberman. 

Telegraphs  he  was  in  Washington  with  Hines  on  Jan.  21,  1911  150 

WIEHE,  C.  F.,  Secretary  of  the  Edward  Hines  Lumber  Company. 

Asked  to  give  message  from  Hines  to  Funk 53 

Telegraphs  Hines  that  Funk  is  in  New  York 54 

Was  with  Hines  when  latter  met  Hettler 56 

Demands  that  Helm  Committee  make  public  examination  of 

books   63 


205 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBANA 

324.773H58E  C001 

EDWARD  MINES  TO  THE  UNION  LEAGUE  CLUB;  A 


30112025283612 


